More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

So God is going to send me to hell for being obnoxiously dumb?

Behold, true holiness.


Your postings are filled insults through and through to people. You impugn their motives, denigrate their experiences, project their feelings, completely misrepresent essentially anything they say, while mocking the strawmen you build, and this of course has been you MO for years. But of course its alright, because your religious system allows it. You dress right, and therefore you are right. Doing is the name of the game. So I'm sure you've earned enough brownie points with all those good works, that God isn't too upset when you blast people or talk about them going to hell for frivolous reasons like wearing slacks or simply annoying you. After all its a just punishment, and thank God you're not like those sinners or even tax collectors. List off your good works, so that God may be reminded how privileged He is to have you as His representative.

I, like Aquila, am glad you are here representing the conservative "apostolic" cause. You play it up well. Holiness is all about what you do and don't do, wear or not wear, go or not go. Check all those boxes, and you can be as mean, prideful, slanderous as you'd like. Perfect.

I can see this why you no longer pastor.

I guess this was the opposite of what you claim I do?

Jason you never were a fast learner. smh?

[Aquila]

Seeing that pants weren't worn by the average Israelite when Deuteronomy was written, the scholars may have a point. The text reads...

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
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.

The first thing that we notice is that this is an abomination. An abomination is a detestable thing in the eyes of God. The term is most often used in relation to pagan idolatry and religious practices. It is also used in connection with aberrant sexual practices, which were typically integrated into pagan worship (for example, homosexual acts). The next thing we see is that the word "man" used here is "geber", which means, "strong man" or "man of war", in the Hebrew. It is most probable that what is intended here is armor and military equipment. And the men were forbidden to put on a woman's garment. We know that in the worship of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites women were accustomed to appear in armor before her and men in soft feminine clothing. This was done because in Canaanite culture women were valued warriors and men were often classified as cowards who dressed as women to cover themselves and escape the enemy. They would then engage in lewd sexual rites of worship as part of their fertility rituals. This text certainly cannot mean a merely a style in dress, for in ancient Israel the clothing styles between men and women had little difference. This Canaanite practice was common throughout the land that God was giving in the Israelites, so such a prohibition would be reasonable and make perfect sense.

So the verse actually puts the kibosh on several things:

- Involvement in Canaanite idolatrous practice.
- Women dawning armor and military equipment and acting as soldiers.
- Men dawning feminine attire and pretending to be women.
- And involvement in lewd sexual perversions whereby gender roles are exchanged one for the other.

Again, it should be stressed that this isn't about cultural clothing styles. Because there was never much difference between male and female dress in ancient Israel during the time of this writing. It should also be stressed that pants were not in view here seeing that they were not part of the common attire of men nor women in ancient Israel.

Since God never rebuked the nation for the fact that male and female attire was so similar, we have to assume that similarities in every day common attire wasn't an issue in the eyes of God. So, our ultra-conservative brethren don't really have much grounds to condemn women to hell merely over them wearing women's jeans or pants which is only a cultural development and presents a similarity comparable to that found among the ancient Israelites.

This view takes several things into consideration that the ultra-conservatives on this position are ignoring.

- The Hebrew meaning of the text itself.
- The cultural & historical context wherein the Israelites were confronted with Canaanite practices.
- The cultural norms of the day in which it was written.
- The cultural norms that continued throughout Israel after it was written.

In essence, the ultra-conservatives on this topic are drawing their conclusion in a vacuum wherein this text is used as a proof text and associated with other unrelated proof texts found in passages of Scripture that are from different writers, separated by nearly 1,000 years, and were written under an entirely different cultural context.

Therefore, I conclude that the ultra-conservative interpretation on this text isn't biblically accurate.

What applications can be drawn from this text?

- The admonishment to avoid participation in pagan ritual.
- The admonishment against allowing women to serve in combat (a virtue among the Canaanites).
- The admonishment against the effort of males trying to avoid military service through cowardice means (a characterization of males among the Canaanites).
- The admonishment to avoid any sexual practice wherein gender roles are abandoned to satisfy perverted lusts such as the cross dressing fetish, including any practice wherein women might wear a phallus and engage in lewd acts with submissive men (also common among the Canaanites who practiced dawning opposite gender attire in ritual).

When the ultra-conservatives apply this text strictly to pants, they are actually not only ignoring a complete exegesis of the text, they are also selling themselves short on the broad spectrum of practices the text would actually address.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Seeing that pants weren't worn by the average Israelite when Deuteronomy was written, the scholars may have a point. The text reads...

Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)
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.

The first thing that we notice is that this is an abomination. An abomination is a detestable thing in the eyes of God. The term is most often used in relation to pagan idolatry and religious practices. It is also used in connection with aberrant sexual practices, which were typically integrated into pagan worship (for example, homosexual acts). The next thing we see is that the word "man" used here is "geber", which means, "strong man" or "man of war", in the Hebrew. It is most probable that what is intended here is armor and military equipment. And the men were forbidden to put on a woman's garment. We know that in the worship of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites women were accustomed to appear in armor before her and men in soft feminine clothing. This was done because in Canaanite culture women were valued warriors and men were often classified as cowards who dressed as women to cover themselves and escape the enemy. Then they engaged in lewd sexual rites of worship as part of their fertility rituals. It certainly cannot mean a simple style in dress, for in ancient Israel the clothing styles between men and women had little difference. This Canaanite practice was common throughout the land that God was giving in the Israelites, so such a prohibition would be reasonable and make perfect sense.

The word geber is used to show masculinity. Job 3:3 Job speaks about his birth. The word geber is used. We are never told in the Bible that Job was a warrior, a man of war. This is the simplest example of the use of geber. But reader you will find that some people don't want simple, they just push agenda. "May the day of my birth perish, and the night that said, 'A boy is conceived!' Sorry, but Job was speaking of a healthy strong male. Deuteronomy is stressing masculinity, and for the female femininity. Therefore pants, trousers, and breeches were male attire, katastole was for females.

Originally Posted by Aquila

So the verse actually puts the kibosh on several things:

- Involvement in Canaanite idolatrous practice.
- Women dawning armor and military equipment and acting as soldiers.
- Men dawning feminine attire and pretending to be women.
- And involvement in lewd sexual perversions whereby gender roles are exchanged one for the other.

Again, here is the argument that Deuteronomy 22:5 is religious. That it is concerning pagan rituals of pagans gender blending. Therefore we can draw the logical conclusion that God has no problem with crossdressing if your intent is righteous? Again, flawed logic, also Aquila argues that they Hebrew children who were tossed into the fire were wearing BABYLONIAN ONLY clothing. Yet, previously the rejected pagan foods, and they are being thrown into the fire because they REFUSED to be involved in pagan rituals. Yet, here they are in pagan attire "which is used in pagan rituals" being thrown to their punishment? No, the garments of these three boys were already in use back home in Jerusalem. But, Aquila uses this argument as it even is still viable to the discussion. He therefore believes that if he says something enough times it by proxy becomes truth. Also military excuse is because of one word, the word geber. This also has been refuted, do a word study, look it up in the Hebrew, and in the LXX Deuteronomy 22:5 the word used is ἀνδρὸς. If there was such an issue to denote military usage of the verse, then the Diaspora Judeans would of had issue with the Greek ἀνδρὸς . Which never happened.
Men dawning female attire pretending to be females? Like Aquila who constantly beat the drum for pants to be mentioned in the verse, homosexuality isn't spoken of in the verse. You see a virtual hodgepodge of different meanings of this one verse from Aquila, because readers he is doing this on the fly. Dedicating more time to Google, then to the verse itself. We don't see anything concerning intent, pagan rituals, military purposes, men wanting to be women. Women wanting to be WARRIORS! Well Sister Alvear loses Warrior Deborah. Even though I don't believe Deborah led armies into battle, we have no Biblical record of females fighting with ancient Israeli military. A woman throwing a millstone over a parapet and killing a man was thought to be disgraceful. Yet, last of all if crossdressing was just about someone's perverted intent, then if we can remove the wrong intent, then the crossdressing is no longer an abomination. That my friends and foes, is called logic.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, it should be stressed that this isn't about cultural clothing styles. Because there was never much difference between male and female dress in ancient Israel during the time of this writing. It should also be stressed that pants were not in view here seeing that they were not part of the common attire of neither men nor women in ancient Israel.

Never much difference? Then where's really the crossdressing? Aquila states archeological evidence. The oldest pair of clothing found on the planet is a pair of oriental calvarymen pants. Since pants were the primary tool for riding horses into battle. Hence Jesus' wearing embroidered pants in Revelation 19:16. Yet, we aren't dealing with anyone trying to come to a truthful conclusion. This whole discussion isn't even about clothing good or bad. It is about agenda. Plain and simple, if Jesus preached and David played his harp Aquila wouldn't change his mind. Because it is all about a group of bad people who MAKE other people to bad things? How gross, and I'm the one who is being insulting?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Since God never rebuked the nation for the fact that male and female attire was so similar, we have to assume that similarities in every day common attire wasn't an issue in the eyes of God. So, our ultra-conservative brethren don't really have much grounds to condemn women to hell merely over them wearing women's jeans or pants.

Never rebuked a nation for similar attire? Deuteronomy 22:5 itself says there attire wasn't similar? You have a law book which has a verse that speaks solely about objects which are NOT similar.

Originally Posted by Aquila

This view takes several things into consideration that the ultra-conservatives on this position are ignoring.

- The Hebrew meaning of the text itself.
- The cultural & historical context wherein the Israelites were confronted with Canaanite practices.
- The cultural norms of the day in which it was written.
- The cultural norms that continued throughout Israel after it was written.

Cultural norms were under Deuteronomy 22:5 they wore different clothing. the Hebrew meaning is the same as the Greek meaning found in their Greek Old Testament. Which was used throughout the Hellenized Judean world. If the verse was to specifically mean WARRIOR? Then no one had an issue with the Greek usage in Deuteronomy 22:5 it just means MAN. Canaanite ritual practices in the entire Bible we are never once shown anything about rituals, involving clothes. Or crossdressing rituals. Not saying there wasn't there most certainly was as in Corinth. Yet, the logical conclusion to that is if your intent is pure you can crossdress. Also the pagan crossdressing argument refutes the three Hebrew children's attire hands down.

Originally Posted by Aquila

In essence, they are drawing their conclusion in a vacuum wherein the verse is used as a proof text and associated with other unrelated texts found in passages of Scripture that are from different writers, separated by nearly 1,000 years, and were written under an entirely different cultural context.

Therefore, I conclude that the ultra-conservative interpretation on this text isn't biblically accurate.

What applications can be drawn from this text?

- The admonishment to avoid participation in pagan ritual.
- The admonishment against allowing women to serve in combat.
- The admonishment against the effort of males trying to avoid military service through cowardice means.
- The admonishment to avoid any sexual practice wherein gender roles are abandoned to satisfy perverted lusts such as the cross dressing fetish including any practice wherein women wear a phallus and engage in lewd acts with submissive men.

When the ultra-conservatives apply this text strictly to clothing styles involving pants, they are actually not only ignoring a complete exegesis of the text, they are selling themselves short on the broad spectrum of practices the text would actually address.

I would just be repeating myself at this point, because Aquila is pounding this into the dirt. Aquila's position is that crossdressing is fine if intent is pure. That is conclusion I have drawn. If it is religious pagan practice or perversion then if your intent is godly then crossdressing is righteous.

Aquila, that is your world?

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

What?!! You don't need Deuteronomy 22:5 to oppose cross dressing, and that is exactly the problem with you guys' interpretation. Y'all NEED this scripture to be picked out of the Law, divorced from textual and historical context and precedent, filtered through a narrow western culture view, and bada bing bafa boom it mean a woman can't wear pants or slacks, and the one that does shall burn in eternal hell fire for doing so. And y'all need this so bad because your textual support is so weak that if y'all can't use Deut 22:5, y'all have nothing left.

Whereas, someone can easily oppose cross dressing using not only old testament prohibitions against homosexuality, but also plain instructions and warnings in the new testament like 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Romans 1:24-32, etc.

Let's talk about picking scriptures out of vacuums shall we?
All any one has done in opposition is offer a vacuum of scriptural precedent for godly women wearing pants. If you disagree with this, provide positive proof of godly women wearing pants from a Biblical perspective. I have asked for this several times now and so far there has been NO scriptural support for the opposing view.

Nothing was "picked from the Law". Actually, it is quite clear. The only thing "divorced from textual and historical context" has been the opposition. The presentation of the opposition is nothing more than an object lesson on how far a person will go to justify themselves. There is a complete disregard for Biblical precedent and a total and complete desire toy use pagan culture, absent any and all Biblical support, to justify their opposition.

This can all be wrapped up by providing the one thing that has been asked for multiple times, where in the Bible did a godly woman wear pants. It's as simple as that.

The fact that this has not been demonstrated reveals where your proverbial "vacuum" lies.

[UnTraditional]

I have known women who wear pants, who have been baptized in Jesus name, filled with the Holy Spirit, to be the most humble I have ever met. Again, I have known some to be so prideful and arrogant that they think themselves as seated on the left hand of God. IN regards, I have seen some sisters wearing dresses and holding very conservative standards who exhibited wonderfully every fruit of the Spirit, and some the exact opposite. I usually deal with the issue with one word...

Modesty.

When a woman wear clothes that are a frame for her face, and not her body, then it is godly. When a woman wear clothes that draw attention to her body and is sensual, I believe that is outside the will of God and shames her. The same with men's clothing as well. I know men who wear skinny jeans, and I know they need some hands laid on them ( ). I have seen women wear pants that I wonder how in the world they are breathing. The entire issue of skirts versus pants on women comes down, and I may be wrong, but to the issue of modesty.

Do I think women are cross-dressing by wear women's pants? Nope. Do I think men are cross-dressing by wearing skinny jeans? They NEED hands laid on them! But, let all things be done to the glory and honor of Jesus alone. Let us therefore be modest as well, both men and women, brothers and sisters.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

So you guys hermeneutic doesn't allow you to deduce from the texts that clearly condemn not only homosexuality, but effeminancy, that cross dressing is wrong.

Somehow, you want to affirm that cross dressing can only be wrong if Deut 22:5 means pants on a woman, and that just because some people who dress in drag claim to be heterosexual, that adds something to your case?

Oh and "gay apostolics".

It's weak.

What is truly weak, in fact completely and conspicuously absent, is your ability to provide ONE scripture where a godly woman wore pants.

Still waiting for the vacuum to be filled with Biblical evidence.

Thank you.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Pliny

What is truly weak, in fact completely and conspicuously absent, is your ability to provide ONE scripture where a godly woman wore pants.

The way you guys approach scripture totally dumbfounding, its like talking to 7th Day Adventists about the Sabbath. It's sad really. Do you have a scripture showing a godly man who shaved his beard, or who wore long sleeves?

The fact that you are so hung up on the need for a scripture where God inspired the writer to go out of their way to tell us such and such a godly woman wore a pair of pants, is not only ridiculous, but also shows just how out of touch your measurement of holiness is with that of God himself. You simply cannot get past the exterior.....

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
1 Peter 3:1-5 KJV

Or to make it a little more plain, a modern dynamic translation....
Don't be concerned about the outward beauty of fancy hairstyles, expensive jewelry, or beautiful clothes. You should clothe yourselves instead with the beauty that comes from within, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is so precious to God.
1 Peter 3:3-4 NLT

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

Did not Paul said that if you keep one part of the law then you must keep it all and Christ has become of no avail to you?

So are you under the law of Moses or under the law of liberty in Christ?

or you only need a tiny little bit of the law, but everything else is grace?

Thank you for ignoring what was quoted from scripture. You believe the Law to be null and void? In your opinion, has has been repealed and useless?

I will sum it up. The Law teaches us to discern between good and evil. It brings us to Christ because we cannot be saved under the Law. Christ fulfilled the Law by becoming our High Priest and taking His own blood to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Thus, we no longer need to bring the blood of bulls and goats because in Christ, this has been fulfilled. However, we are still commanded to be holy as He is holy.

Grace is not a license to sin. We have a responsibility to hunt for God's holiness and live according to His precepts. Thus, Jeremiah says God would write the Law upon our hearts as we strive to be holy as He is holy. The OT is not of no further use. It was written for our admonition to teach us about God's holiness so we can have a means to discern between right and wrong.

We are not under the Law but under grace. However, grace is not a license to sin. If something is an abomination to God then it is always an abomination to God because God is immutable. If God demands we be holy as He is holy then we must understand His holiness to ensure we are striving for (hunting for) His holiness. Still, justification from sin comes through Christ alone and not through the Law; yet, this is balanced against our responsibility to seek first God's kingdom and His righteousness.

I am glad He wrote His Law upon my heart and that it still has value in my life to discern right from wrong. I am also glad that Christ paid the price for my justification. It is your prerogative to live as you see fit. You are welcome to ignore the OT and the precepts the immutable God laid down. However, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

(Mat 5:17 ESV) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Using scripture in context is dumb?

But believing that a God who wills none to perish, took upon Himself human flesh, subjected Himself to the greatest humility and blasphemy to bear each and every sin, hung on the cross dying while being mocked "come down off that cross if you are the Son of God", who had every ability and power to come down, yet remained there, fixed and dying, held not by weakness but by love, to demonstrate His love for every one us, and so to make atonement for all of our sins, any who will come to Him in faith and repentance.......

Originally Posted by Jason B

Just wanted to say it again...

Since you have referred to this "again", allow me to respond.
What will send a person to hell? You are asking me to sit in judgement of people. This is wrong for I cannot make a judgement nor do I want to sit on God's judgement seat. I need mercy and will err on mercy's side because I want to reap mercy myself.

With that said, I believe anything that does not measure up to God's holiness can send a soul to hell. I have a responsibility to tell people what I believe that God's holiness is. What they do with it is up to them. I am to teach and preach. God is their judge not me. Thus, your demand to place me on the judgement seat is unfair and wrong.

It is interesting you believe repentance is required. So do I. Repentance requires a person to turn from their wicked ways and follow after God. To seek His holiness and to recognize:
(Pro 14:12 ESV) There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

Therefore, we must hunt for God's holiness so we can be holy as He is holy. My responsibility is tell tell people about that holiness. It is their responsibility to accept or reject it. At that point, it is between them and God. I pray for mercy but what happens when a soul rejects God's holiness?

[Jason B]

A serious question, I'm sure its been asked before, but I can't recall the answers given.

To the people who believe a female wearing a bifurcated garment is sin, yea ABOMINATION, would that not mean that women out not even to wear pajama pants?

I ask because if a man cross dresses, even if the privacy of his own home, and even if a heterosexual, we would all agree that behavior is sinful. So then, if you honestly believe that a woman who wear pants, slacks, capris, culottes, etc is sinning, then how do you justify women wearing pajama pants? Does the time of day or physical location somehow change what is sinful and abominable?

Now, I understand that there are women who will not wear pj pants for this reason, at least they are consistent. I also know that its not really uncommon for all these uc women who'd never wear pants in public, who do so daily in private overnight? Its quite common.

So how do you guys justify this? Or are all those women who wear pj pants also sinning?