Deuteronomy 22:5 - Clothing and Gender-Identity in

[Scott Hutchinson]

An article about this subject can be found here.

http://jerryhayesmin.org/www.jerryha...lications.html

[missourimary]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

True Holiness:

James 1:27
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Gal. 5:22-23
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Un-holiness:

Gal. 5:19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

AQP, what version were these in, please? I like it!!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by missourimary

AQP, what version were these in, please? I like it!!

I think NLT? I looked them up on Biblos, which shows you several versions at once.

Here's one link:

http://bible.cc/james/1-27.htm

[missourimary]

Thank you! I didn't know about that website, either. I'll definitely be using it!

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by missourimary

Thank you! I didn't know about that website, either. I'll definitely be using it!

I love it. I like being able to see all of the versions at once.

[Dimples]

More discussion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think that anyone who would project an attitude of "no preacher is going to tell me how to dress" upon folks who have never even considered such a thing nor even been exposed to an environment where anybody told them how to dress but their own mother needs to do a bit of soul searching himself.

Women in ancient and primitive cultures wore "skirts" for a variety of reasons - often the same reasons men wore "skirts" as well. It was the barbarian horse riding cultures from northern latitudes who introduced "pants." The versatility and especially, the modesty, that pants afford caught on like wildfire.

If modesty is a primary concern for any culture or subculture, clothing both genders in slacks or "pants" is a no-brainer. Unless of course if your subculture has no brains to begin with; then you have other problems.

Originally Posted by OilCityCajun

I did not project upon anyone. I was not referring to any specific person or group of people, on these boards or elsewhere. I said, if anyone has that attitude. If anyone does not have that attitude, I wasnt talking about them and there is no need for such a hypersensitive reaction.
..

I've been away for a while and I'm trying to catch up a bit... this one sort of cracks me up. My "hypersensitive" response? LOL. Love you, Bro. Try some hydrocortisone on those sensitive areas.

[iceniez]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This is an interesting point. Most of the same preachers who preach against pants because they're "masculine" have no problem with women working outside the home. They say pants are a spin-off of the women's lib movement, so must be wrong and indicative of a rebellious attitude. But a woman having a career is not? I know many churches who actively encourage women to work outside the home, and apply pressure to those who don't.

That seems to be a great contradiction.

Not saying I think it's wrong for women to have careers, it's just an interesting thought process that condemns one but not the other.

So the pastor can receive more tithes perhaps ?

[Justin]

This is a good article:

http://tigerfx.com/docs/HayzlipChris...rUnderwear.pdf

[commonsense]

Over 30 years ago I was reading Deuteronomy and the passage just jumped out at me. I saw it as an admonition against cross dressing. It was a minor revelation perhaps but I never worried about it again.


In regard to modern women wearing pants------I was in a small town last Oct for a fall celebration. Parade, street vendors etc; I wandered through a local historical society museum.

Many cool displays. I love seeing turn of the century clothing, furniture etc.

They had framed photos depicting local events pre 1920.

One of a riverside baptism service, no church name listed but a nice group of people at the riverbank.

Another showed some women working......and they had jeans and overalls on. AND this was before 1920.

Just wanted to indicate that women wore "pants" before WWII.