More on Skirts

[Aquila]

It should also be noted that without a specific condemnation on a specific article of clothing, the fact that said clothing isn't mentioned in relation to women stands to be cultural in nature and not a biblical mandate.

It can also simply be that a specific article of clothing was indeed also worn by women, but is only unmentioned. For example, we might not find a reference to godly women wearing bifurcated undergarments. This doesn't mean that godly women never wore bifurcated undergarments.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Not surprising. Some loose an argument and then make wild eyed accusations that conservatives don't care if a woman gets raped. Since they cannot refute the argument they must resort to slanderous hatred.

No matter how you look at it, pants were worn by godly men not godly women. Due to this, the detractors have made outrageous and monstrous attacks against me and other conservatives. They owe an apology for this but as can be seen - no apology has been, and likely never will be, offered. Why is this? Is it because they hate the conservative stand more than they care about truth and justice? Is it "just" to argue that conservatives do not care about women? I am disgusted by such a cowardly charge.

How convenient for you to leave this off your post, and continue the feigned outrage

Originally Posted by n david

I should not have said: "I doubt cons are concerned about this." It's wrong of me to insinuate cons are callous and unconcerned about rape and sexual assault. I certainly don't believe cons are unconcerned or callous about that, so I apologize for that part of my post. It was wrong and I shouldn't have posted that.

.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

I should not have said: "I doubt cons are concerned about this." It's wrong of me to insinuate cons are callous and unconcerned about rape and sexual assault. I certainly don't believe cons are unconcerned or callous about that, so I apologize for that part of my post. It was wrong and I shouldn't have posted that.

The rest is true. There are no exclusion. There are no exceptions. Cons believe any woman wearing pants will burn in hell. Period. It doesn't matter why a woman chooses to wear pants, be it culture, personal preference, or simple dislike of cold weather and the wind blowing up around her nether regions. That doesn't matter. No exclusions. No exceptions.

Thank you for this. Now, you do not know what I believe. All you know is what I believe the Bible teaches. It is up to God to determine who goers to hell and who doesn't. I hope everyone escapes eternal torment and neither will I place anyone there. It is my responsibility to teach and preach. It is up to God to make the final judgment.

Originally Posted by Jason B

How convenient for you to leave this off your post, and continue the feigned outrage

Thank you for pointing this out.
I missed it.

It is NOT "feigned". It is real.

Thank you again n david for the apology. I am sorry I missed it.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by n david

Feel better yet?

How does one LOOSE an argument? Anyway, no I did not LOSE any argument. You have no legs to stand on regarding your claims on Deuteronomy 22:5. And "slanderous hatred?" I never slandered you or anyone else, nor do I "hate" you or anyone else.

Hey, did you see the apology I posted on Friday? I want to make sure you saw it, since you claimed none was made or will be made, then rambled on about truth and justice. Here it is again, just in case:

No, I did not see it. I am glad that it has been pointed out. Thank you. It is appreciated.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This affirms that Godly men wore trousers. Here we agree. However, silence doesn't prove that women never wore trousers or pantaloons.

Still waiting for you to demonstrate this and especially demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants.
Your "argument" is the only argument from silence. The Bible does not have to specify that women never wore pants. It is assumed unless you can prove otherwise - so once again please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants.

It is important to note that the Scythian women wore trousers.

Scythian women and Persian women may or may not have worn pants. That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not godly women wore pants. Now, if you want to determine right and wrong from heathen nations, that is you prerogative. Mine is to use the Bible while I diligently search for God's holiness and righteousness in my life by seeking His kingdom first. Not my own.

Silence isn't a certainty. Silence doesn't prove that women never wore trousers or pantaloons.

The only silence is your conspicuous lack of evidence. Please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. Apparently that has been too difficult a task because they never did.


Both males and females wore the pantaloons under their inner garments.

Once again, please demonstrate where a godly woman wore pants. The reason why you cannot demonstrate this is because they didn't.


Barnes doesn't indicate that the priests wore pants, he was saying that these pantaloons in question were worn under the inner garment, as in the case of the priests and their breeches. Scripture itself describes the breeches of the priests:

Exodus 28:42
And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

They were shorts.

This may be true but Barnes states they correspond to pantaloons. Sorry you missed that.

Silence isn't an argument. You have to find a text specifically condemning pants on a woman. Now, that would be an argument.

You are correct. Your silence (conspicuous lack of evidence) is not an argument at all. Your silence (lack of evidence) demonstrates your fallacy. A condemnation is not required anymore than a condemnation of using illicit drugs (for recreational purposes - medicine would be a exception) is required to understand that this is wrong. I do not need the Bible to spell out the recreational use of heroine is wrong. I do not need the Bible to spell out the recreational use of peyote is wrong etc. According to this logic, there would only be 613 things that could or could not be done. Anything not specifically mentioned would be okay. How foolish indeed!

Yes, the idea that conservatives don't care if women are raped wasn't called for. Both sides should move on from that emotional distraction and continue the discussion.

No further discussion can be given until new evidence is presented. Such as, providing evidence where godly women wore pants. Until then, I would caution every woman who wants a Biblical standard to live by to consider seriously whether or not they want to wear "strange clothing". God says He will punish those who do:
(Zep 1:8 KJV) And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Barnes makes another interesting note with regards to Job 1:20...



Men and women often wore the same essential articles of clothing. Other commentators indicate that the only difference was with regards to size and style.

Then, it should not be difficult to find a godly woman wearing pants. However, after the multitudes of posts and not a single reference to a godly woman wearing them, I must agree that your argument from silence is no argument at all. Only the desperate attempt to justify yourself.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

No further discussion can be given until new evidence is presented. Such as, providing evidence where godly women wore pants. Until then, I would caution every woman who wants a Biblical standard to live by to consider seriously whether or not they want to wear "strange clothing". God says He will punish those who do:
(Zep 1:8 KJV) And it shall come to pass in the day of the LORD'S sacrifice, that I will punish the princes, and the king's children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.

That's not what "strange apparel" means. lol

The meaning of strange apparel is in verse 4:

4 “ I will stretch out My hand against Judah,
And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
I will cut off every trace of Baal from this place,
The names of the idolatrous priests with the pagan priests—

The temple was over run with pagan's and Baal worshipers. These were the strangly clad people. The Levites had been given particular rules on what to where in the temple. These pagans did not follow these rules (among many) thus, "strange apparel".

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Then, it should not be difficult to find a godly woman wearing pants. However, after the multitudes of posts and not a single reference to a godly woman wearing them, I must agree that your argument from silence is no argument at all. Only the desperate attempt to justify yourself.

So, are you saying that women went naked under their garments???

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Now, you do not know what I believe. All you know is what I believe the Bible teaches. It is up to God to determine who goers to hell and who doesn't. I hope everyone escapes eternal torment and neither will I place anyone there. It is my responsibility to teach and preach. It is up to God to make the final judgment.

It's the classic statement, where one believes one thing, but doesn't really want to say it outright, so instead blames it on God.

Originally Posted by Pliny

All you know is what I believe the Bible teaches.

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is true the Deu. is not speaking specifically about pants. If the Bible spoke specifically about everything there would be multitudes of "commandments" instead of the 613 "Mitzvah's". God gave the ministry to discern between right and wrong (Lev. 10:10; Deu. 17:9; Eph. 4:10-12).

This quote from you is interesting, especially since you've pushed back on my claim that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not about pants. In that post, you somewhat agree with me that Deuteronomy 22:5 is not about pants.

Originally Posted by Pliny

It is up to God to determine who goers to hell and who doesn't. I hope everyone escapes eternal torment and neither will I place anyone there. It is my responsibility to teach and preach. It is up to God to make the final judgment.

Originally Posted by Pliny

For those who believe "pants" on women are okay because there is not a specific commandment against it - do you think smoking is okay as well? After all, there is no specific prohibition against it?...

As for me and my house - we will seek the "No-Smoking" section of eternity. :-)

From the post above, it appears you do believe women who wear pants will be sent to the smoking section of eternity.

Is a women committing sin if she wears pants? Yes or no?

If the answer is yes, then either you believe a person who is in sin will be seated in the smoking section of eternity, or you're a universalist who believes sinners will still somehow be allowed into Heaven.

If the answer is no, you've wasted a lot of time arguing over something which really doesn't matter.

Hint: the answer is no.

[Aquila]

n david,

Since they believe that a woman wearing pants is an "abomination" to God, they have no wiggle room. According to their interpretation, the moment a born again, Holy Spirit filled woman puts on a pair of ladies jeans, trousers, a pants suit, or even pajama pants, they are committing a sin as heinous as sodomy and is Hell bound.