bereanway:
Let's start with these three Bible passages. Deuteronomy 22:5, Deuteronomy 22:9, Deuteronomy 22:11. In Deuteronomy 22:5, it says "A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man wear that which pertains to a woman". In Deuteronomy 22:9 "Thou shall not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds, lest the fruit of the seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of the vineyard be defiled". in Deuteronomy 22:11, it says "Thou shall not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together".

Now, Deuteronomy 22:5 is against a woman putting on a man's wear, vice versa. But if you look at Deuteronomy 22:9 and Deuteronomy 22:11, you discover that those who are bragging about Deuteronomy 22:5 may not be keeping the law of Deuteronomy 22:9 and 11. This makes them hypocrites. Will you tell me that a born again Christian that is a farmer does not plant or has never planted diverse seeds in his farm, garden or vineyard? or will you tell me that no born again Christian has never won woolen and linen together? it may have happened. So using this chapter to argue about trousers, makes Christians hypocrites, because they may not keep other laws in the chapter.

So finally, whatever you wear that will make people doubt your Christian profession

nlPoster:




I just put that there because I don't know what to type.

bereanway:
Hello everyone,

There is usually debates about trousers: if it is a sin or not, etc. And people have been selfish or self-centered in speaking against trousers or supporting trousers. But I am here to give you biblical proofs on what you should do on trousers, and this proofs will give you the right direction about trousers.

Let's start with these three Bible passages. Deuteronomy 22:5, Deuteronomy 22:9, Deuteronomy 22:11. In Deuteronomy 22:5, i It says "A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man wear that which pertains to a woman". In Deuteronomy 22:9 "Thou shall not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds, lest the fruit of the seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of the vineyard be defiled". in Deuteronomy 22:11, it says "Thou shall not wear a garment of diverse sorts, as of woolen and linen together".

Now, Deuteronomy 22:5 is against a woman putting on a man's wear, vice versa. But if you look at Deuteronomy 22:9 and Deuteronomy 22:11, you discover that those who are bragging about Deuteronomy 22:5 may not be keeping the law of Deuteronomy 22:9 and 11. This makes them hypocrites. Will you tell me that a born again Christian that is a farmer does not plant or has never planted diverse seeds in his farm, garden or vineyard? or will you tell me that no born again Christian has never won woolen and linen together? it may have happened. So using this chapter to argue about trousers, makes Christians hypocrites, because they may not keep other laws in the chapter.

Now, should we wear trousers or not? Since we have male and female trousers, their is a distinction; but I tell you, "If people staying where you are do not glorify God through you whenever you put trousers, then do not put trousers". Glorifying God through you could mean preaching the gospel. "Can you use trousers to preach and people get convinced about the God in you?". If in your location, people glorify God through you even when you preach with trousers, then you may be justified.

So finally, whatever you wear that will make people doubt your Christian profession, it does not glorify God, because "you are the light of the world"

MuttleyLaff:
Why were the scribes fond of wearing long robes then, hmm?

Jesus included their dress code to address the motive for and behind why they dress in flowing "babaringa" like robes

OK, Mr Smartypants, even if the Bible never mentioned Jesus putting on robe by himself, the Bible at least mentions that without shrugging it off, Jesus obediently let them put on Him a robe naah. No be so, hmm?

Jesus on different occasions, is recorded in the Bible to have worn either garment or robe.

Jesus wore both. Let me give you a chance to shine like a star and be a hero. Whats the difference between a garment and robe? Of course if you know, you'll easily and correctly know the difference, even pinpoint the different occasions, when and where Jesus wore garment and robe, lol.

"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."
- Deuteronomy 22:5

"alBHAGDADI is my very good customer. We have regular transactions together. The most recent one, I have asked alBHAGDADI many times over, to please and kindly in a way that a two year old can understand, that's if at all if he really does know, to soon explain to us, the reason behind why, in the Bible, God said cross dressing is an abomination to Him and that women should abstain from wearing what belongs to men, likewise men what belongs to women, but this request seems to be hard and difficult for him to deliver and give answers to"
- Re: Daddy Freeze Hails Pastor Abel Damina For Saying Women Can Wear Trousers by MuttleyLaff: 3:41pm On Apr 09

Women, in Deuteronomy 22:5, were told to stay away from men's clothing and vice versa only because of the idolatrous practices associated with cross dressing, that is meaning, men wearing women’s clothing, and vice versa as part of carrying out an idolatrous rite.

Deuteronomy 22:5, is about the idolatory pagan ritual custom that cross dressing is associated with. That's the underlying reason of concern to God about cross dressing. It is the association with idolatry practices and pagan ritualistics done when and with wearing clothes of the opposite sex that is detesting to God. alBHAGDADI you couldnt answer that question when I previously asked you, why God detests it, but now you know better and we thank God for that. So, alBHAGDADI, that is the reason, the why and what God dislikes and says its an abomination, period. OK? Any other twisting and turning by you naa wash ojaare.

alBHAGDADI you already know me that I dont venture into subjects I havent a watertight understanding of and this how I easily can show you verses in 2 Kings and Zephaniah that explains Deuteronomy 22:5 has to do with cross dressing associated idolatrous practices and/or rites, lol.

RandomGuy48:
I'm not sure of that argument. One cannot say that the Deuteronomy laws are entirely done away with, as by that logic things like incest are suddenly okay. While some of the rules in Deuteronomy/Leviticus are of the ceremonial variety, meaning they are considered by most Christians to be no longer applicable (there are a few that argue Christians are supposed to follow all of those rules, but we're not talking about that viewpoint), but there are also moral laws. There are also civil laws of Israel, which obviously are no longer applicable either. Anyway, the fact that Deuteronomy 22:5 has something that 22:9/22:11 do not, the statement that it is an abomination, indicates that it is a moral law rather than a ceremonial one.

That said, there is a different problem I've long had. Now, there are two possible interpretations of Deuteronomy 22:5. The first is that it means there are some articles are clothing that are exclusively for men, and some that are exclusively for women. What qualified as such do not change. The second is that it's meant more culturally, that what qualify as men or women's clothing depends on the culture, and what counts as women's or men's clothes can vary depending on time and location.

Clearly, those who favor the idea that women cannot wear trousers must accept the first interpretation. The question then becomes, do trousers count under this rule? There are two problems I see with this idea. First, at the time these rules were given, trousers would have been an unknown concept to the Israelites--they simply hadn't been introduced yet. Which would mean that upon the later introduction of trousers, they were instantly and irrevocably considered a man's garment somehow.

If this was the case, however, we come to an issue: If, for the last 2500 or so years (the amount of time trousers were known), trousers were considered a man's garment in Christianity/Judaism, why is it I've seen no one advance this view ever point to anything prior to the last century or two? Surely, there would have been various "what people should wear" writings throughout history that would specify men's clothing is to be trousers and to cite Deuteronomy 22:5 in favor if this were the case. Maybe such things do exist, but I've yet to see anyone point to them. Their absence is very conspicuous and a major hole in the claim that trousers were and are only to be worn by men.

MuttleyLaff:
Please be balanced and non-discriminatory. Also, please find it in you, to be truthful to the fact and be honest enough, to admit that, it is specifically the idolatory pagan ritual custom of cross dressing, that's the underlying reason of concern to God

MuttleyLaff:
"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."
- Deuteronomy 22:5

Michellekabod2, I am quite sure you do know that the Old Testament Deuteronomy 22:5 verse that is banded about and waved in people's face specifically is about the idolatory pagan ritual custom of cross dressing. That's the underlying reason of concern to God about cross dressing, it's the association with idolatry practices and pagan ritualistics done when and with wearing clothes of the opposite sex.

nlPoster:
"So finally, whatever you wear that will make people doubt your Christian profession"
I just put that there because I don't know what to type.

bereanway:
That point is a solid.

MuttleyLaff:
... the idolatory pagan ritual custom that cross dressing is associated with. That's the underlying reason of concern to God about cross dressing. It is the association with idolatry practices and pagan ritualistics done when and with wearing clothes of the opposite sex that is detesting to God. This is what God dislikes and says its an abomination, period. Any other twisting and turning naa wash ojaare.

The truth for some others is too difficult to believe

MuttleyLaff:





That point is not solid, it is weak, lame and limp, because are you saying Mrs nlPoster or Mrs bereanway and any of the Misses nlPoster or little female bereanway, dont wear and/or havent ever worn a pair of trousers/pants ni?

Do nlPoster or bereanway doubt the Christian profession of Mrs nlPoster or Mrs bereanway, when or if they wear your male t-shirt, male polo shirt, male boxer shorts, wrap your male towel round themselves, put on your male socks, put on your male jogging bottoms ni, hmm? lol. I am sure yall are beginning to see how out of place as to be amusing, all this much ado about nothing brouhaha is beginning to look now and how you've misunderstood what really was going on with the wearing of trousers cross dressing issue.

bereanway:
Whatever you wear, whether trousers or skirt; if it brings glory to God, it is okay.

bereanway:
Muttleylaf read the updated version.

bereanway:
Christians from all churches who support or don't support trousers should read this.

MuttleyLaff:
"Then the disciples came to Him and asked,
“Do you realize You offended the Pharisees (i.e. the Far-to-see) by what You just said?”"
- Matthew 15:12

You're at all levels, on point

What they need to do is, explain to us, the reason behind why, in the Bible, God said cross dressing is an abomination to Him and that women should abstain from wearing what belongs to men, likewise, men not to wear what belongs to women. Why did/does God says He detests the act

bereanway:
One needs the Holy Spirit to clear some controversies.

bereanway:
Holy Spirit is highly needed!!

MuttleyLaff:
Nah hin ooo, as nothing beats the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth who reveals all things to us. Praise God. Alleluia.

bereanway:
Some doctrines are church-based than Holy Spirit-inspired

nlPoster:
Most Nigerians' problem is they have no problem.

bereanway:
you sure?

nlPoster:
Most Nigerians' problem is they have no problem.

bereanway:
you sure?

nlPoster:
If you had any problem to talk about you wouldnt have opened this thread.
So, you have no problems worth mentioning if trousers are the only thing that come to your mind.

nlPoster:
Reported not because I have anything personally against your post but because I simply don't want to see it when I'm on the thread.
No hard feelings.

bereanway:
The way some people talk against trousers, it is so strong!!!..But we cannot use our belief system as a general belief system....

bereanway:
It is well....

MuttleyLaff:

[img]https://s5/images/NotWhatItSeems.jpg[/img]

That viral picture of Obasanjo, Jonathan and Dickson in a living room, may not be at all what the female journalist Facebook blogger blogger Joi John seemed. When free in someone's company, you could and/or would in their presence, comfortably and carefree sit down like Dickson did

aishauju:
But that sitting position is not good when you meet superiors like these men.

MuttleyLaff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8uS5Qy8X1w
Here we go again. I think, if that sitting position is not good when you meet superiors like those men, then Dickson, should have just sat on the bare floor ojaare to make people like you be happy, lol. It just reminds me of the Ebenezer Obey's donkey, donkey rider and his son, that evergreen "awọn ọmọ araiye" classic tune