Cross Dressers

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Michael Phelps

I'd have to say that if there were dresses made for men, a man wouldn't be cross dressing if he wore one.

However, if he wears a dress made for women with the intent of making himself look like a woman, you might have a point.

Just as if a woman wears pants made for women, I don't see how we can say she's crossdressing.
However, if she wears a man's apparel with the purpose of looking like a man, she's crossdressing.

This is right, and we know this because when a man wears women's clothing that also consists of women's pants, we consider them crossdressing, do we not?

We aren't saying that because of the shirt they might be wearing only. We aren't saying it because of his purse. It's because of the whole picture that we see.

Consistency.............

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Rev

Women almost never wore pants until the 1940s.

The school where I went would not allow girls to wear pants and it sure wasn't pentecostal.

Women in this country, you mean.

Women in some other countries have been wearing pants for centuries.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Is it written in the bible that women must wear dresses?

Were dresses invented by the twelve apostles, or were dresses a product of culture? If they were a product of culture, what if that culture changes? Is culture ever allowed to change?

Apparently it changed once because the disciples wore a dress-like garment!!! So did Jesus!!!

Funny thing is, when men started wearing pants in the Western world about 400 years ago, they were considered to be immodest!!

I wonder what the UPCI did about that back then? Can you imagine the discussions on the internet when men started wearing pants???

Why, I heard it said that Epley wrote that he wouldn't preach a man in his pulpit that had pants on!!

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

I have one for you.

If a little kid who makes up a story is called a liar,

What is a preacher that makes up scripture called?

OUCH!!

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Rev

(Deu 22:5) The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I have yet to find anyone on this forum who disagrees with this scripture.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by alogi

My understanding is this ,the priest in the old testament under the old Levite priest hood were all man.They had to wear britches as they would walk above the people on platforms.They wore these leggings to cover themselves under their robes. This was modesty issue.

While I agree it was a modesty issue, they weren't pants, but more like underwear. Funny thing is, only priests could wear them. They were not a man's garment just because the priests were men. A priest's garment was exclusively for priests ONLY.

Please notice that God did not ordain any woman to be a preist in the Levite preist hood.Neither does he today.Hebrews13:8 God does not change.
So those that believe in woman preachers, it is prettystrange that you will want them to macrh up and down the pulpit and redicule every man that say they have no right to preach.Yet you will not condone them to wear britches while doing his.

We are all part of the royal priesthood according to scripture. Your post above makes no sense in light of scripture. In addition, there were female priestesses. Anna was one.

If a woman has the right according to some on here to preach like a man, then she also has the right to cross dress while she preaches.Now let us not hold to any double standards.

Still, you make no sense.

If a woman usurps authority overa flock against Pauls warnings in the scripture then she should also waer the priste garments also.They were britches.

You should do a little research before talking about something you obviously know nothing about. Anyone looking at a priest would see his robe, not anything underneath it. Robes look like.......DRESSES!!!!

So if its ok for a woman to preach ,then its also ok in the eyes of God for her to wear man's britches while doing so.
So I have there fore become your enemy because I tell you truth.

This makes about as much sense as you saying that unless a man stomps, spits, sweats, screams, and shouts out his message, he should wear a dress for preaching like a girl.

Grow up.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

Or was it the two bumps on the women's robes?

Depends on the genetics.......LOL!

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by pelathais

What's your point again?

Let's take a look at our dusty old Bibles and see if we can find any guidance about these Sybarites who have come to vex you.

Deuteronomy 22:5, is the text that you neglected to take. No matter, I have found it here.

"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Now, the first thing that I notice is that the word "pants" isn't even a part of the inspired discussion. Further, from taking a little extra time to look at the pictures in some of these old dusty Bibles I notice that no one at all wore pants in those days!

The issue that has come to our attention here is "that which pertaineth unto a man" and what is meant by "a woman's garment." Pants are not even mentioned.

So as long as you cut back on the embroidery and rhinestones on your blue jeans I don't think anyone's going to confuse your pant's for a pair of ladies pants. For you to wear such a garment would be "an abomination" unto the Lord akin to eating shrimp and lobster tails.

Would you call every man who ever wore a skirt a "cross dresser?"

Psalm 133.

More importantly, the UPCI manual (you know, the book that sometimes trumps the Bible) doesn't mention pants on women either!!!

Look on any public bathroom door in America...how can you tell which bathroom is which - presuming no words on the door? Just a thought...maybe the woman's and men's doors are marked differently?

God is interested in what mankind wears: Deut 22:5; Exodus 28:42-43; Zeph 1:8; I Tim 2:9