Crossdressing...Just how does a woman participate? - Page 17

mfblume · #**161** 08-29-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The subject of the thread is about cross-dressing and how it relates to women.

I'm simply saying that if we are going to argue from the point of culture, it is important to me where that culture was derived. And that hasn't been a part of the subject on this thread. So, I can't agree with you that clothing is clothing, period, and it doesn't matter where it began.

I know that when you study fashion in the early 1400 and 1500's that the middle class began to change their styles which were set by the elites. You even state in your post that the men in elite society started running around like women with frills and heels.

So, as Randy stated earlier, the "political" and "upperclass" have always led the way in fashion. It is still true today. And that is a point of interest to me.

Then you must agree that pants on men are wrong due to the manner in which pants started to come to be men's clothing. That was my point. If you do not agree, then you must agree clothing is clothing. Honestly does God care HOW something started when he is dealing with modesty? He did not say to dress in a way that culturally and politically was free of aberrant intentions when the specific clothing came into being. He said to dress MODESTLY for modesty's sake. So, if you disagree clothing is clothing, period, then you disagree with why God said what He did about modesty, for it means you do not agree modesty is the point in and of itself.

mfblume · #**162** 08-29-2011, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

I don't have to argue anything but what I choose. I am simply pointing out a textual argument that is false.

Did not think you could argue it. Who can?

LUKE2447 · #**163** 08-29-2011, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Did not think you could argue it. Who can?

Mike my point is simple... reread what I am saying in reference to what you said. I am not getting into those aspects. Has nothing to do with ability or not or even position. I will argue the points I have pointed out without getting roped into whatever you feel to throw out as if I have to answer other surrounding things than what I have stated and am focused on.

LUKE2447 · #**164** 08-29-2011, 02:40 PM

Mike.... post 156.

rgcraig · #**165** 08-29-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

Mike.... post 156.

I like this version of the passage and think it's exactly what God was talking about:

5 Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. [a] The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that.

LUKE2447 · #**166** 08-29-2011, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I like this version of the passage and think it's exactly what God was talking about:

5 Women must not pretend to be men, and men must not pretend to be women. [a] The LORD your God is disgusted with people who do that.

of course that is all nice and a partial aspect of truth and even is speaking of a well rounded point... but it is not what the text says and it actually takes away from the text when we start doing poor paraphrases etc... I like literal versions because to me when we start doing away with focusing on what it actually says we change the Word of God. JMHO

Pressing-On · #**167** 08-29-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

Then you must agree that pants on men are wrong due to the manner in which pants started to come to be men's clothing. That was my point. If you do not agree, then you must agree clothing is clothing. Honestly does God care HOW something started when he is dealing with modesty? He did not say to dress in a way that culturally and politically was free of aberrant intentions when the specific clothing came into being. He said to dress MODESTLY for modesty's sake. So, if you disagree clothing is clothing, period, then you disagree with why God said what He did about modesty, for it means you do not agree modesty is the point in and of itself.

I've understood that Iranian Scythians and Achaemenid Persians were the first to wear trousers. And I know that in Ancient China only soldiers wore trousers. I think that the way they came into society in European culture was in a different manner altogether - frills and heels.

rgcraig · #**168** 08-29-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447

of course that is all nice and a partial aspect of truth and even is speaking of a well rounded point... but it is not what the text says and it actually takes away from the text when we start doing poor paraphrases etc... I like literal versions because to me when we start doing away with focusing on what it actually says we change the Word of God. JMHO

Well, JMHO, I believe it means what I stated.

LUKE2447 · #**169** 08-29-2011, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Well, JMHO, I believe it means what I stated.

that's fine but nowhere is that a literal rendering of the text as the text is strict and to the point. Though I would agree with what it says as a principle just not as what the text reads or even points to.

houston · #**170** 08-29-2011, 02:59 PM

15 century Korea. Men and women wore pants. Men covered their pants with a skirt.