More on Skirts

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

In other words you are defeated and all your base are belong to us.

"All your base are belong to us?" Sprechen English?

[Esaias]

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

"All your base are belong to us?" Sprechen English?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This is a misrepresentation and you know that.

No, it's not. You insinuated I was wrong for calling sin "sin." You had no words for how wrong I was to name sin "sin."

Originally Posted by Esaias

Another misrepresentation. You are being legalistic in your demand for every Christian to be perfect in obedience to ALL commands (including those not yet known) at the moment of initial conversion, with no allowance for growth in knowledge and obedience.

Speaking of misrepresentation, you're the king here.

I never stated "ever Christian to be perfect in obedience to all commands ... at the moment of initial conversation ..

I simply stated that a sinner knows what sin is, why should we pretend Christians are dumb and need time to learn what sin is/isn't? I also stated that people are not perfect, but that people with unrepentant sin would not be saved. That's simply the Bible.

Originally Posted by Esaias

But then again, you appear to believe that once a person is born again there is nothing left to improve on in their life

Please post the quote where I allegedly said this. Right, I didn't post anything of the sort. Of course people grow in Christ, that doesn't mean we coddle and excuse sin! Sin is sin, and nowhere in the Bible does it give separate definitions for newborn Christians vs mature Christians.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Actually, that's correct.

Next?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Barnes clearly references the priesthood; hence, the use of the word "priest". Now you may believe women were priests but I do not. So go back to the drawing board and try again.

Barnes clearly inserted "as in the case of the priests" as a side note. Any second grader could figure that out.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Now, I am also waiting for your specific passage that says pedophilia is sin.

Sure, after your specific passage that says snorting cocaine is sin.

Pliny be like:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

No, it's not. You insinuated I was wrong for calling sin "sin." You had no words for how wrong I was to name sin "sin."

Incorrect. You have reading comprehension difficulties and an affinity for straw man arguments and misrepresentation.

Speaking of misrepresentation, you're the king here.

I misrepresented nothing.

I never stated "ever Christian to be perfect in obedience to all commands ... at the moment of initial conversation ..

If all sinners know what sin is, and no Christian needs to learn what sin is or what is a sin, then all Christians are perfect in obedience to all known and unknown commands.

I simply stated that a sinner knows what sin is, why should we pretend Christians are dumb and need time to learn what sin is/isn't? I also stated that people are not perfect, but that people with unrepentant sin would not be saved. That's simply the Bible.

So you agreed, that all Christians have no need to learn obedience, that means they are "perfect in obedience", and are so from the moment they become Christians.

Please post the quote where I allegedly said this. Right, I didn't post anything of the sort. Of course people grow in Christ, that doesn't mean we coddle and excuse sin! Sin is sin, and nowhere in the Bible does it give separate definitions for newborn Christians vs mature Christians.

You say you don't say things, then say them. In the same post, even.

Stick a fork in it, this thread is done.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by n david

Barnes clearly inserted "as in the case of the priests" as a side note. Any second grader could figure that out.


Sure, after your specific passage that says snorting cocaine is sin.

Pliny be like:

Your reasoning is dumb.

That gif was funny, though.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'd go as far as to say that not only does Deuteronomy 22:5 not mention pants, but not one of the 613 "mitzvahs" (as you put them) mention pants either. If it was indeed that important, you know, there is language for specifying pants. But the language isn't there. Deuteronomy 22:5 is about the cross dressing perversion... not a specific style and cut of clothing.

Transvestism in Ancient Israel
https://claudemariottini.com/2009/01...ncient-israel/

The logic postulated here suggests that since "pants" are not "specifically" mentioned then, pants must not be intended. therefore, women can wear pants.

The problem with this polemic is that it demands an unreasonable standard. For example, if the Bible MUST be specific for something to be wrong then, pedophilia is okay under this standard.

The truth is there are timeless principles in God's word. The principle found in Deu. 22:5 is that men and women are to remain distinct in their clothing (what they wear). Since pants are worn then they must be understood Biblically.

As has been demonstrated ad-infinitum - godly men wore pants and godly women did not. This principle holds true today.

To argue that it is okay to wear pants because Deu. did not specify that article of clothing opens the door for pedophilia and anything else not specifically mentioned in the Bible. In short, this "logic" does violence to the very nature of scripture. God never intended the Bible to be an exhaustive list of do's and don'ts. He provided the principle and we must use those principles to discern right from wrong. Since the Bible never records a godly woman wearing pants then, it is certain that there is a reason why it is not there...

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

You want to give a single scripture stating that pants were specifically part of a man's attire and not a woman's?

Just another example of the "logic" where there is a demand for specificity.

Based on this logic, give me a specific scripture that states pedophilia is wrong.

How many more examples are required?