Cross Dressers

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by ForeverBlessed

No, Grace requires more....


and just for the record... i don't believe Deut 22:5 is referencing pants...they weren't invented yet. It is in reference to cross dressing, and I don't believe women's pants ...made for women is cross dressing in 2008.

They are if men are wearing them!!!

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Rev

The moral law stands forever not just under Old Testament times. The Lord knew what would be happening in 2008 and his word still applies today just like it did then.

Nobody is doubting that God's Word applies to us all today.

Let's answer honestly just this one question.......

Fitting issues aside, would you buy and wear women's pants?

[Fiyahstarter]

I'm rubber... you're glue.

Nah Nah Nah Nah

[Bro-Larry]

[QUOTE=ForeverBlessed;377029]No, Grace requires more.... Quote]



Grace requires more....? more of what? Please explain what you mean.

[Rev]

Originally Posted by big-larry

Grace requires more....? more of what? Please explain what you mean.

If you let your prosperity destroy you, you are a fool. Prov 1:32

I don't think I'll ever have to worry about that!

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Rev

If a man that wears a dress is called a cross dresser

What is a woman called that wears pants?

Did Jesus wear pants?

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Rev

Women almost never wore pants until the 1940s.

Maybe in this country, but the same can not be said everywhere else.

[Rico]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

I saw a picture of J-Lo in a pair of pants------------------------
Sure didn't look like no man to me!!!!!!!

Seriously, the pants issue to me has more to do with a woman being modest than looking like a man. Of course there are lesbians trying to portray themselves as a man. The problem with this line of argument is that we have women in Pentecostal churches that will wear a skin-tight skirt/dress and justify that she is holy because she isn't wearing pants. The issue is sensuality and exposing the body in an inappropriate manner IMO.

Sooooo, wearing something that exposes the leg from just below the knee and offers an opportunity for the wind to blow it up, thereby exposing even more flesh falls under the "holy" category, but wearing something that does neither is "unholy"? Ooooooooook!

[Rico]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

How does this equate to wearing of pants? Since everyone was wearing robes?

T R A D I T I O N and plain old making scriptures say something they don't.

[Rico]

Well, I am gonna stop 'cause I promised myself I would not get sucked into the AFF trap again. Nite y'all!