LordReed:


Good that you put yourself in the same boat as women who wear trousers. As you condemn them, you condemn yourself, glad you see that.

OLAADEGBU:
.

OLAADEGBU:
.

LordReed:

Image123:


You've got things wretchedly mixed up.

RandomGuy48:
So, I'm curious. To argue that Deuteronomy 22:5 in the present day disallows women to wear trousers, one must assert that trousers are perpetually only a man's clothing at any time in any place. If this is indeed the case, one would expect there would have been early statements of it by Christians. But all anyone seems able to point to are statements made in the last century or two. True, that was when more women started wearing trousers so there was greater reason to talk about it, but as far as I can tell there's complete silence on the point prior, which doesn't seem to support the idea that pants are always considered a man's clothes and thus women are forbidden by Deuteronomy 22:5 to ever wear them.

So here is a question. What is the earliest time anyone in the history of Christianity that someone specifically stated that a women wearing trousers is an inherent violation of Deuteronomy 22:5? Anyone know?

OLAADEGBU:


Atheists crooked thinking are weird and that explains why they always cuss.

Image123:


You've got things wretchedly mixed up.

Image123:
The summary of what you have written below is that you agree to my 'reasons' but you strongly want/expect men to be self controlled or disciplined.

Image123:
How you came out so easily is what i'm not sure of, maybe due to our mutual respect for one another though. Because i expect a kind of watertight defence to this "gospel" of trousers, not the kind pastor Chris gave or that you are giving. Let's be over careful of turning the grace of God into lasciviousness, in order to excuse immoral ways.

Image123:
i already did, but you don't seem to like/want the answer.

Image123:
It is not new sir. There are usually clauses and explanations to rules. Like you are giving your idolatry/cross dressing "revelation". You can be naked in your bathroom, but not everywhere. It is not partiality or double standards, it is discretion.

Image123:
Again, firstly and lastly, i will say that i am not talking about salvation or judgement or eternity. Note that clearly and markedly and foundationally, lest you 'fall'. A racist cannot have black friends and mentors, except racist has changed meaning.

Image123:
And this is doctrine from where? In your words jokingly "This is a man made idea, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Teaching human rules after turning God laws on its head!" Did you hear yourself nicely?

Image123:
It's not a doctrine, it is something very practical and visible.

Image123:
Not to say much, let's pity the Too many weak men, shallow men all over town. We both agree that they exist, and GOD knows.

Image123:
Two wrongs don't make a right. The woman is a weaker vessel, according to the Bible and according to experience.

Image123:
Good that you also see reason, just that you don't agree.

Image123:
Again, you see reason, thank God. i'd have thought i was hallucinating or something. Sorry, we live in a world where Josephs are one in a million literally. The Word of God is written for all, not for 'one in a millions'. That's why women should try to help the weak.

Image123:
i'm convinced it is wrong because of the above given reasons. It recklessly neglects new testament principles of abstaining from every appearance of evil, of trying not to be an offence or stumbling block to others. Not everything is expedient, and like Paul, i believe women should be ready and willing to do away with meat, seeing it makes many fake men.

Image123:
Pastor Chris Oyakhilome speaks on why he thinks women should wear trousers in the short youtube video in this post.

First and last, for me, wearing of trousers is not an issue of salvation. Note that boldly. So it's not a question or argument about this person is saved or not saved. We are saved by grace through faith, not by what we wear or don't wear. But there are things that are right and there are things that are wrong. For instance, it is wrong for you to miss church, or be sleeping or washing clothes or watching film at home during service. It is wrong for you to owe people money without paying them. Whether you will go to hell or be damned for this is another topic on its own.

So back to the matter. i believe absolutely that it is wrong for ladies to wear pants for many reasons. But in this video, the popular pastor Chris gives some reasons which i see as shallow and misleading.

Firstly, i was surprised that trousers or no trousers was such a big issue for them(BLW). i never knew they cared so much what people thought about wearing trousers. i thought they were altogether blind about it.

[s]Then pastor Chris gave some fallacious reasons why women should wear trousers. Do you agree with him?[/s]

One, [s]he says someone received the Holy Spirit baptism wearing trousers. Therefore, it means Holy Spirit validates the trouser wearing. In that case, he is assuming salvation or any of the graces is by works. Sorry sir, We receive from God by FAITH. There is the role of TEACHING. i thought he would remember this as a teacher himself. God can give you salvation, or sanctification, or Spirit baptism, even at a go(like the Cornelius household or apostle Paul). It does not mean that you are ALL right. There are still things you still need to learn and unlearn.[/s]

[s]Two, he makes reference to what was prevalent a few years ago. Saying that a few years ago, it was a taboo for a christian woman to wear trousers. Well sir, many things have since changed also, doesn't make them right. Some things were more of culture too, not because of bible or christianity. A few years ago, it was also odd to be gay. A few years ago, it was rare to divorce and unheard of for pastors to commit immorality openly whatever the denomination. There was a lot of sanity i think, a few years ago. Both in the christian world and in the secular. A few years ago, you would rarely see christian brothers with beards even. There were many good things and bad things that have changed since a few years ago. So change or acceptance of something today is not a defence of it been right. Pastor Chris of all people should know that.[/s]

Unfortunately too, he showed something which i find a sad repeated occurence in almost all churches. That is man-worship. People follow or believe their pastor hook, line and sinker. He simply can do NO wrong. He showed this when he talked about a lady preacher coming to BLW to preach and how confidently he would erase all she was saying from the congregation's mind. Not too different from those who would not even allow guest preachers BTW. Then he went ahead to blatantly tell the audience that BELONG is different from PERTAIN, quoting Deuteronomy 22v5. And of course my people took it like it came as revelation straight from Mount Sinai hot. Sorry sir, pertain and belong are synonyms. They mean the same thing

And by the way, i thought that the common argument was that Deuteronomy does not apply to christians or New Testament? Then it went to trousers is not only for men and was not mentioned? Now, the narrative has changed or what? From his explanation, we can all wear skirts, high heels, geles etc. Just make sure as a man that a woman has not worn it before, and vice versa.

Among other things, he mentioned that Jesus Christ was not allowed in the synagogue that is why he went to the desert, and that Pharisees were not around Him etc. Well, that's not even what i want to talk about in the thread. But it just goes to show that people need to read and study the Bible for themselves. Many of these preachers simply just say things that are not there in the Bible.

Image123:


i'm saying that it is wrong.

MuttleyLaff:
You again, not unusually got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I do not agree to your "reason". Of course I strongly expect men to have and exercise self will. I strongly expect men to develop self control or self-discipline, so the point that, just like in that Alsatian dogs and casually walking by cat, they will be able to keep it together and not be tossed to and fro by the waves and get carried away by anything in a skirt. Case in point, Joseph showing strong will power and Potiphar's wife

Image123, I know and understand you to be a honest moG, which is why I am doing an "Aquila and Priscilla" with you

Image 123, recall I mentioned that Pastor Chris is not fully woke, yet he did cover the subject with enough depth & aplomb I must say. I further said his submission though wasnt feeble, yet where he majorly left out and what made his edification insufficient and not enough is where he left out the idolatory pagan ritual custom that cross dressing is associated with. Here is where I'll could agree with you that its not the kind of watertight defence to this "gospel" of cross dressing, or the kind pastor Chris gave.

As I previously advanced, even though you dont find it an agreeable thought, the underlying reason of concern to God about cross dressing, is to do with 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.

Image123, you still dont get it. The answer is not and never will "it is wrong" because the response should be binary answer

Image123, fyi, "Are you saying Mrs Image123and any of the Misses Image123 dont wear and/or havent ever worn a pair of trousers/pants ni?" requires a Yes or No answer and not "it is wrong"

OK then Image123, what's the alternative "revelation" for why, as said in Deuteronomy 22:5, God, detests anyone who does cross dresses, hmm?

You were trying to absolve yourself, so you slipped in, "i think it will interest you, and perhaps stop you from further copying and pasting some of your questions, to note that i have very close/dear female ministers and 'mentors' that wear pants/slacks."

Are you saying Mrs Image123and any of the Misses Image123 dont wear and/or havent ever worn a pair of trousers/pants ni?. This question will never go away, until answered correctly lol

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head (i.e. Leviticus 19:27)
Men not to trim or clip off the edges of their beard (i.e. Leviticus 19:27)
Men not to have long hair (i.e. 1 Corinthians 11:14)

Without micing words, that's exactly what you are doing Image123. Now how many out of the three verses above do you adhere to

Image123, it is a man made idea, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. It is you teaching human rules after turning God laws on its head!

Image123, you already know me that I dont venture into subjects I havent a watertight understanding of and this how I can show you verses in 2 Kings and Zephaniah that explains Deuteronomy 22:5 away as nothing to do with your "it is something very practical and visible" version of event, but as I always maintain, has to do with cross dressing done and used for idolatrous purposes, meaning men wearing women’s clothing, and vice versa as part of an idolatrous rite

If it makes you feel great, then carry on making light of it that way

Image123, you've prooftexted 1 Peter 3:7 with this your "the woman is a weaker vessel" comment. C'mon now, the burden is upon the man in 1 Peter 3:7 and not the woman

I brought up "So? Dont men go about shirtless, dont men go about sleeveless showing bulging biceps ni?" because you first advanced "#4, it has subtly empowered and spurred on the feminism agenda over the decades."

[img]https://s3/images/ObamaMuttley.gif[/img]
I wish you drop the blinkers and start seeing reasons too.
How do you mean, I dont agree?. I dont agree to what exactly?

Are you trying to say, you're a weak man. If you are able and capable to stand firm, whats stopping other fellow men from doing so

The true test of a man's character is what he does, at seeing a näked woman, à la the King David way or a reminisce of something similar, when no one is watching

There is nothing evil, bar the idolatrous purposes connection, in women wearing men clothing and vice versa. Image123, please dont be a hypocrite.

Hang how do you mean "i believe women should be ready and willing to do away with meat" smh. I guess, left to you we should enforce a Taliban slant on this matter of ready and willing to do away with "meat", like no bikini wearing at beaches or swimming pool sides, no female Olympic or other games sport dressing showing flesh abi? All because the men can keep their fly zipped up. Right?

It is someone like you who will rather the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was not näkedly put and openly left in the attractive centre part of the garden of Eden. You'll be saying why couldnt and/or didnt God cover the tree up.Your reason will be because the tree is attractive and tempting to Adam and Eve. Dry laugh

drakeli:
If you asked me, I would tell you I’m against women wearing trousers especially in a culture where trousers are generally not acceptable. But my opinion changed when I traveled to a different clime where wearing trousers is culturally normal especially because of the cold weather. It gets so cold such that people including myself are wearing two to three pairs of trousers to protect our legs against frost bite. I can’t imagine myself wearing up to three pairs of trousers together in winter without anyone knowing in order to keep my legs warm and expect a woman to be wearing skirt in the same weather condition. That could cause a serious health implication for her legs. Wearing skirts or gown in such weather condition exposing your legs can be dangerous. Some people have had their legs cut off due to frost bite. Thank God, there’s no such weather condition in Nigeria.

Image123:
Wouldn't it be a waste of space to reply to this other fellow that almost went berserk so sure of herself or himself?Let me use my time more profitably.

MuttleyLaff:
Image123, dont tell me, you expect, "maybe we should not mention that pastor again", to come here defend himself, when he has minnows, loads of small and insignificant persons at his beck and call, in "the organization" to do the snarling and give brusque responses for him, erhn? I am sure the pastor whose name we should not mention, knows that, why keep a dog(s) and bark yourself? lol. Who, in their right mind, does something like that, erhn?

So, yes, I concur 110% and without reservation, that it will be a waste of space, waste of internet ink like my brother from another mother, CaveAdullam will say, waste of your valuable and precious time to reply to this other fellow that's gone berserk so sure of herself or himself? You've made the right judgement to please use your time more profitably than with him and his likes.

Image123:
Lol, you got me laughing there.

drakeli:
If you asked me, I would tell you I’m against women wearing trousers especially in a culture where trousers are generally not acceptable. But my opinion changed when I traveled to a different clime where wearing trousers is culturally normal especially because of the cold weather. It gets so cold such that people including myself are wearing two to three pairs of trousers to protect our legs against frost bite. I can’t imagine myself wearing up to three pairs of trousers together in winter without anyone knowing in order to keep my legs warm and expect a woman to be wearing skirt in the same weather condition. That could cause a serious health implication for her legs. Wearing skirts or gown in such weather condition exposing your legs can be dangerous. Some people have had their legs cut off due to frost bite. Thank God, there’s no such weather condition in Nigeria.

Image123:
And by the way, i thought that the common argument was that Deuteronomy does not apply to christians or New Testament? Then it went to trousers is not only for men and was not mentioned? Now, the narrative has changed or what? From his explanation, we can all wear skirts, high heels, geles etc. Just make sure as a man that a woman has not worn it before, and vice versa.

Among other things, he mentioned that Jesus Christ was not allowed in the synagogue that is why he went to the desert, and that Pharisees were not around Him etc. Well, that's not even what i want to talk about in the thread. But it just goes to show that people need to read and study the Bible for themselves. Many of these preachers simply just say things that are not there in the Bible.

Image123:


I guess you fully agree, pastor Chris cannot err. Can he?

Image123:
I guess you fully agree, pastor Chris cannot err. Can he?

petra1:
Anyone can err. But he didnt err here. Firstly the bible never condemn trouser. There was no trouser in bible days. In fact there was no difference between Male and female all wore the same national gown. And there was no difference in the style or fashion . Men wire same gone as women except other accessories like head covering.

MuttleyLaff:
Image123 ooo. Pardon me for shouting out your name as if I put money down for plate during your naming ceremony. I am sorry, as the thing dey kami lara, nahin make me hala.

OK Image123 here's the deal, I've been thinking deeply about this thread, topic heading, content and especially Deuteronomy 22:5, I think that is your what you use as proof for your theological belief that women shouldnt wear men's trousers lol,....
cc Finallydead