More on Skirts - Page 138

Aquila · #**1371** 05-31-2017, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny

Neither is mercy.

I hope you do not get a nose bleed from setting yourself up on Christ's throne and I hope you do not drown from having your nose stuck up so high in the air - when it rains.

There may come a time when I have to "kick someone out" but that will only be after much prayer and fasting. If I err, it will be on mercy's side. You can keep your legalistic judgments away from me.

Pliny... I don't see pants on a woman as an abomination. We'd never kick a woman out over pants. LOL

Let me remind you... it is YOU who claims that a woman wearing pants is an ABOMINATION. LOL

n david · #**1372** 05-31-2017, 11:56 AM

So it really is all a big show, well, with Pliny at least.

Pants on women are a sin and abomination ... but, not so much that it requires them actually saying so to the women who wear them. And definitely they don't want to talk about the consequences of it being a sin and an abomination.

Remind me again, what happened to the watchman who didn't warn the people?

"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."

If you believe pants on women is a sin and abomination, and you do not warn them of the judgment to come ... their blood is on your hands, Pliny.

Aquila · #**1373** 05-31-2017, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

So it really is all a big show, well, with Pliny at least.

Pants on women are a sin and abomination ... but, not so much that it requires them actually saying so to the women who wear them. And definitely they don't want to talk about the consequences of it being a sin and an abomination.

Remind me again, what happened to the watchman who didn't warn the people?

"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand."

If you believe pants on women is a sin and abomination, and you do not warn them of the judgment to come ... their blood is on your hands, Pliny.

Pliny doesn't realize how serious things become once they are considered an abomination.

Pliny · #**1374** 05-31-2017, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

No, it's that your question is stupid and doesn't deserve an answer.

Which is a haughty way of saying I do not want to answer because it reveals how ignorant your position is.

Post my quote where I state the Talmud trumps the Bible. Contrary to your repeated claims, the Bible does not state that women only wore robes and that men wore pants.

Great! Then you should be able to provide the Biblical reference for godly women wearing pants. I anxiously await your evidence.

I forgot, you don't understand basic sentence structure or the use of quotation marks. You want to "charge" me with plagiarism, be my guest.

Let's see, I don't understand sentence structure. So because you use a quotation mark I am supposed to know that you are quoting from the Talmud? Please do explain how a quotation mark is intricately tied to the Talmud. Also, I said a person could charge you with plagiarism and explained why. I guess you could not comprehend that part. Perhaps when you get to the second grade they will explain how to properly cite quotes.

Post my quote where I stated the Talmud invalidates the Bible. You were whining about my posting a quote (using quotation marks) and threatening to "charge" me with plagiarism, yet you post a completely false accusation above.
Another false allegation. I never "threatened" you with plagiarism. I was simply trying to help you avoid the charge in the future if someone wanted too. Maybe this will help you:
Cite - Citing is one of the effective ways to avoid plagiarism. Follow the document formatting guidelines (i.e. APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) used by your educational institution or the institution that issued the research request. This usually entails the addition of the author(s) and the date of the publication or similar information. Citing is really that simple. Not citing properly can constitute plagiarism.
Write check, Ways to Avoid Plagiarism, Section 2. Found at:
http://en.writecheck.com/ways-to-avoid-plagiarism/

Still can't find that verse where godly women wore pants.

Pliny · #**1375** 05-31-2017, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Gird up your loins like a man.

If you really believe that pants on a woman is an ABOMINATION... act like it.

Back to ad-hominem attacks.

Pliny · #**1376** 05-31-2017, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

Why wasn't the Hebrew word "labash" used, instead of "hayah?" Odd that if the original verse was about "wearing" something, they didn't use the Hebrew word for it, which is "labash."

Labash - to put on, wear, clothe, be clothed
Hayah - to fall out, come to pass, become, be

Of course, this is where you don't like using the original definition and instead use Dictionary.com for your reference; because using the original Hebrew definition doesn't fit your narrative of pants.

But it does fit what I quoted previously from Jewish history and culture.

Glad to know you THINK you know more than the translators.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I will stick with the scholars on this one.

Pliny · #**1377** 05-31-2017, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pliny, would you allow two men to commit homosexuality in the fifth pew of the church while you're preaching and NOT address it from the pulpit???

If pants on a woman is also an abomination, and she is sitting in the fifth pew of your church all smiley and clapping along in her new designer abominations, will you NOT address it from the pulpit???

Both would be ABOMINATIONS, according to YOU.

Stupid post.

You hate my stand so much you are projecting.

Pliny · #**1378** 05-31-2017, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by n david

Hold. the. phone. Are you actually posting that unless one repents, they will perish? How dare you, sir! You need to show the mercy of Jesus.

Oh wait, that's actually what Jesus said: "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Some here would have it instead, "Except ye learn over a period of years and decades what is right and wrong, ye shall be in sin, but I won't say you will perish because I don't want judge like that. Also, if your a newborn Christian, I don't expect you to know what sin is, so you're exempt. Except for women wearing pants! Sinners! Eh, but again, I'm not going to say your sin will lead to death because I don't want to be mean."

Another stupid post.

Still waiting for that Biblical evidence. Oh wait. There is none for your position.

I guess everyone you know is perfect and does not need a pastor or a teacher. Peter was ignorant to think someone might grow in the grace and knowledge of God.
(2Pe 3:18 KJV) But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

Pliny · #**1379** 05-31-2017, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think you guys are wanting to sound all courageous and tough by demanding that Deuteronomy 22:5 define women wearing pants as an abomination... but you don't have the courage to address it as such.

Just another meaningless ad-hominem attack to avoid demonstrating, Biblically, where godly women wore pants.

n david · #**1380** 05-31-2017, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pliny

Glad to know you THINK you know more than the translators.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 ESV) "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God.
(Deu 22:5 JPS) A woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I will stick with the scholars on this one.

Weak. Typical. You can't answer the question, and don't like that it disproves your theory, so you fall back on falsely claiming that I think I know more than the translators. To use your statement: "Which is a haughty way of saying I do not want to answer because it reveals how ignorant your position is."