Trousers for females is not a sin

Don't ask me for scriptural backup because I know that the ones who preach against it do not have any scriptural backing except that verse in Deuteronomy which has nothing to do with trousers.

I'm very sure that in those churches preaches against trousers for women, some female members wear tights and shorts under their skirts and gowns. What makes them different? Does tight not also have two legs?

Emary:


The question is whether trousers were designed originally for men or women. They were origninally unisex garments. Period.

In your study, you quoted that the first recorded trousers worn by women was by amazons. Anyone knows that amazons are like tomboys, they do what boys or men do. The inference is clearly that trousers were originally mens garment. Period.

ggirl4real:
Trousers for females is not a sin

Don't ask me for scriptural backup because I know that the ones who preach against it do not have any scriptural backing except that verse in Deuteronomy which has nothing to do with trousers.

I'm very sure that in those churches preaches against trousers for women, some female members wear tights and shorts under their skirts and gowns. What makes them different? Does tight not also have two legs?

A grown human being is asking for the difference between underwear and outerwear.

Image123:


In your study, you quoted that the first recorded trousers worn by women was by amazons. Anyone knows that amazons are like tomboys, they do what boys or men do. The inference is clearly that trousers were originally mens garment. Period.

You are just inferring to make it seem like you are correct. The quote is that it was originally worn by both sexes. Also, please educate yourself properly. Amazons were not tomboys but an elite group of very well trained warrior women.

It depends on your Church!
Some churches say it's a sin, while in other Churches women even where trousers to preach on the pulpit.

OrdinaryPeeps:
h t tps://youtu.be/qWcsg1l9Wb0

It's a massive bone of contention among various denominations. No one has been able to give a satisfactory explanation to this issue.

Do you attend a trouser-wearing church?
Are they proper for Christian ladies?

Let's hear your opinion with scriptural backings.

#becoming_like_Christ
Note: The attached video is a short explanation from a renowned preacher, apostle Joshua Selman. You can check it out if you don't mind.

OrdinaryPeeps:
Alright, then. Spare a little time to check out Joshua Selman's opinion from the link in the post.

Thanks for your input.

OrdinaryPeeps:
Thank you for your input, sir! Do you mind checking this message from Joshua Selman? He could be making some sense: h ttps://youtu.be/qWcsg1l9Wb0

"⁴²The next day the people of Shechem went out into the fields to battle. When Abimelech heard about it,
⁴³he divided his men into three groups and set an ambush in the fields.
When Abimelech saw the people coming out of the city, he and his men jumped up from their hiding places and attacked them.
⁴⁴Abimelech and his group stormed the city gate to keep the men of Shechem from getting back in,
while Abimelech’s other two groups cut them down in the fields.
⁴⁵The battle went on all day before Abimelech finally captured the city.
He killed the people, leveled the city, and scattered salt all over the ground.
⁴⁶When the leading citizens who lived in the tower of Shechem heard what had happened, they ran and hid in the temple of Baal-berith.
⁴⁷Someone reported to Abimelech that the citizens had gathered in the temple,
⁴⁸so he led his forces to Mount Zalmon. He took an ax and chopped some branches from a tree, then put them on his shoulder.
“Quick, do as I have done!” he told his men.
⁴⁹So each of them cut down some branches, following Abimelech’s example.
They piled the branches against the walls of the temple and set them on fire.
So all the people who had lived in the tower of Shechem died—about 1,000 men and women.
⁵⁰Then Abimelech attacked the town of Thebez and captured it.
⁵¹But there was a strong tower inside the town, and all the men and women—the entire population—fled to it.
They barricaded themselves in and climbed up to the roof of the tower.
⁵²Abimelech followed them to attack the tower. But as he prepared to set fire to the entrance,
⁵³a woman on the roof dropped a millstone that landed on Abimelech’s head and crushed his skull.
⁵⁴He quickly said to his young armor bearer,
“Draw your sword and kill me! Don’t let it be said that a woman killed Abimelech!”
So the young man ran him through with his sword, and he died.
⁵⁵When Abimelech’s men saw that he was dead, they disbanded and returned to their homes.
⁵⁶In this way, God punished Abimelech for the evil he had done against his father by murdering his seventy brothers.
⁵⁷God also punished the men of Shechem for all their evil. So the curse of Jotham son of Gideon was fulfilled.
- Judges 9:42-57

Joshua Selman, another infamous hireling, as usual pulling wool over unsuspecting eyes, saying women dont go to war, talking as if during acts of war, acts of aggression, women wouldn't take up arms, wouldnt pick a weapon to defend their cities, their families, their kids, their lives et cetera. When war comes to woman, without her going to war, she as in the case of the woman in Judges 9:53 above, fight back. Should I mention Jael, the wife of Heber, the Kenite, to reinforce the point ni?

Deborah, was not just a judge but she was the commander in chief of the Israelites armed forces then. She circa Judges 4:6-10, told the general of her army, in the person, of Barak, that she will certainly go with him to the war front.

ggirl4real:
Trousers for females is not a sin

Don't ask me for scriptural backup because I know that the ones who preach against it do not have any scriptural backing except that verse in Deuteronomy which has nothing to do with wearing trousers per se.

I'm very sure that in those churches preaches against trousers for women, some female members wear tights and shorts under their skirts and gowns. What makes them different? Does tight not also have two legs?

---

---

---

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

"al.BHAGDADI is my very good customer. We have regular transactions together. The most recent one, I have asked al.BHAGDADI 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 2019

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.

al.BHAGDADI 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.

We have weak males, who have no self-restraint, no self-control, no self-mastery, no self-discipline, no control over their feelings/weaknesses, so bad that they perceive women in trousers solely as an object of sexual desire and see nothing at all positive in them wearing a pair.

Men!!!!!! Controlling women gives them a lot of hard on. A society that gets to treat her women as slaves or as person with no agency don't get to prosper. It's reason why the Bible is full of wars and evil.

Imagine if women were not gang up against by their parents and foolish men who made laws to oppress them, will there be so much evil?

Frontpage worthy. Lalasticlala, check it out.

Emary:


You are just inferring to make it seem like you are correct. The quote is that it was originally worn by both sexes. Also, please educate yourself properly. Amazons were not tomboys but an elite group of very well trained warrior women.

The Amazons you seem to be banking on are myth. That on the side, the point remains that the term "Amazon" refers to strong women, uncommon women like men. That is the matured class of tomboys. They are people that do things that most women do not and would not do. They do things that men do. So if we take the OP's video serious, they are wrong. The woman should not be an Amazon(female warrior/soldier) is the translation the pastor is suggesting. So you cannot use them as the religious or christian example. They were not the standard of women dressing, past or present or future.

OrdinaryPeeps:
Frontpage worthy. Lalasticlala, check it out.

Friend find a real way to grow your youtube views and following.

Emary:


It is very simple. Trousers were designed for comfort during horseback riding, right? For centuries, mostly men went to war while women stayed at home nuturing their offspring so women preferred to wear feminine flowing clothing. Today, both men and women go to war and horses are hardly used as means of transport. Women are however far more active and mobile than before moving long distance to work then come back home to do other activities, They will require clothing that makes them move freely with comfort. Trousers do that.

For me, as long as trousers are not too form fitting (this applies all clothing) and a woman cannot be mistaken for a man and vice versa, there is nothing wrong with them. Let every man work out his own salvation.

The BOLD is the truth you should focus on.

Image123:


The Amazons you seem to be banking on are myth. That on the side, the point remains that the term "Amazon" refers to strong women, uncommon women like men. That is the matured class of tomboys. They are people that do things that most women do not and would not do. They do things that men do. So if we take the OP's video serious, they are wrong. The woman should not be an Amazon(female warrior/soldier) is the translation the pastor is suggesting. So you cannot use them as the religious or christian example. They were not the standard of women dressing, past or present or future.

Your argument does not remove the fact that trousers were designed as unisex garments and as such, there is nothing wrong with a woman wearing trousers. Human beings set standards according to what they find suitable or comfortable at the time. In biblical days, men wore gowns. In the time of Jesus, it was a tunic which was a gown. Are you saying it was wrong for men to put on what is perceived as female clothing today?

The problem of many Christians today is that we are a lot like the Pharisees looking for trivial outwardly signs to fault our Christian brethren rather than focusing on the heart and true intentions.

Image123:


The BOLD is the truth you should focus on.

The only thing to focus on there is the word "Preferred". Preference implies comfort. Before the 20th century, there were no modern toilets or proper feminine hygiene products so a woman who had to pee or was menstruating in transit would have a very hard time getting off her trousers to go to toilet. That would inform the need to wear something she could lift easily. Today, a woman is less likely to have that challenge. She may also prefer to put on clothing that would be less likely to expose her private parts and undergarments. Many girls have had some men try to put their hands up their skirts or have been molested simply because they were wearing gowns or skirts, no matter how long or shapeless they are.

Emary:


Your argument does not remove the fact that trousers were designed as unisex garments and as such, there is nothing wrong with a woman wearing trousers. Human beings set standards according to what they find suitable or comfortable at the time. In biblical days, men wore gowns. In the time of Jesus, it was a tunic which was a gown. Are you saying it was wrong for men to put on what is perceived as female clothing today?

The problem of many Christians today is that we are a lot like the Pharisees looking for trivial outwardly signs to fault our Christian brethren rather than focusing on the heart and true intentions.

i don't even know where i left off with this.
Your argument states categorically that Amazons are the females who wore trousers earlier. We all know many women just started wearing trousers about 50 to 70 years ago; Basically after the World War, when poverty drove women out to do men's work. Coupled with the Industrial Revolution.
If we rest on your argument, amazons were either myth or the very people Deut 22:5 says not to copy if we follow the interpretation of the pastor in the OP. So any of the ways, it is still not For but Against.

Emary:


The only thing to focus on there is the word "Preferred". Preference implies comfort. Before the 20th century, there were no modern toilets or proper feminine hygiene products so a woman who had to pee or was menstruating in transit would have a very hard time getting off her trousers to go to toilet. That would inform the need to wear something she could lift easily. Today, a woman is less likely to have that challenge. She may also prefer to put on clothing that would be less likely to expose her private parts and undergarments. Many girls have had some men try to put their hands up their skirts or have been molested simply because they were wearing gowns or skirts, no matter how long or shapeless they are.

i laugh in Naira. What you females don't understand is that the trousers expose you more than any decent skirt will. The average man has seen you already in his imagination. He just has to throway face and focus

Image123:


i don't even know where i left off with this.
Your argument states categorically that Amazons are the females who wore trousers earlier. We all know many women just started wearing trousers about 50 to 70 years ago; Basically after the World War, when poverty drove women out to do men's work. Coupled with the Industrial Revolution.
If we rest on your argument, amazons were either myth or the very people Deut 22:5 says not to copy if we follow the interpretation of the pastor in the OP. So any of the ways, it is still not For but Against.

There has always been poverty and it will always exist. Women have also done a lot of so called men's work over the centuries. A lot of women have not only gone to war, tilled farms, fended for their families jwhen their husbands were dead, incapitated or away but lead battles over the centuries in all the continents. You can interpret the bible verse as you please but there is no reference to trousers as male garments in any scripture at all. If you consider trousers unholy for women, men should also not wear tunics or kaftans which are gowns. God did not design clothing. Man (both sexes) did that to cover his shame after eating the forbidden fruit.

Image123:


i laugh in Naira. What you females don't understand is that the trousers expose you more than any decent skirt will. The average man has seen you already in his imagination. He just has to throway face and focus

The perverted men who think in this manner will imagine whatever they want to even if a woman is dressed in a tent. Even women in purdah are raped if perverts are given the opportunity. As a true Christian, one should focus one's thoughts or other things or divert one's gaze. Do you really think it is only men who are visually tempted?

Emary:


There has always been poverty and it will always exist. Women have also done a lot of so called men's work over the centuries. A lot of women have not only gone to war, tilled farms, fended for their families jwhen their husbands were dead, incapitated or away but lead battles over the centuries in all the continents. You can interpret the bible verse as you please but there is no reference to trousers as male garments in any scripture at all. If you consider trousers unholy for women, men should also not wear tunics or kaftans which are gowns. God did not design clothing. Man (both sexes) did that to cover his shame after eating the forbidden fruit.

You've not said anything at all. What i said in the quote is the plain history of women popularly wearing trousers. It has nothing to do with Bible or religion or myself. It's just what happened, what made trousers become popular among women. You don't fight the facts, you either research to confirm them or use them. Roaming about concerning other clothing is a cheap distraction and fallacy. The discussion is about trousers. Normal women just began to wear trousers openly less than 100 years ago. Get your facts straight and stop roaming.

Emary:


The perverted men who think in this manner will imagine whatever they want to even if a woman is dressed in a tent. Even women in purdah are raped if perverts are given the opportunity. As a true Christian, one should focus one's thoughts or other things or divert one's gaze. Do you really think it is only men who are visually tempted?

There you go again, you're roaming. Women don't dress for true Christians, do they? Jesus said true Christians are so few and the road so straight. So if your dressing don't care about the majority and what you do to them, it shows that you don't care. . The OP's pastor preacher has warned you, don't follow Amazon warriors.

Image123:


You've not said anything at all. What i said in the quote is the plain history of women popularly wearing trousers. It has nothing to do with Bible or religion or myself. It's just what happened, what made trousers become popular among women. You don't fight the facts, you either research to confirm them or use them. Roaming about concerning other clothing is a cheap distraction and fallacy. The discussion is about trousers. Normal women just began to wear trousers openly less than 100 years ago. Get your facts straight and stop roaming.

"Normal" women wore trousers centuries before Christ and they've started wearing them again. The fact remains that there is nothing biblical against trousers. Only your prejudices.

Image123:


There you go again, you're roaming. Women don't dress for true Christians, do they? Jesus said true Christians are so few and the road so straight. So if your dressing don't care about the majority and what you do to them, it shows that you don't care. . The OP's pastor preacher has warned you, don't follow Amazon warriors.

Let us all work out our own salvation. I wish you well.

Emary:


Let us all work out our own salvation. I wish you well.

Wish you well Emary. Like i usually say, wearing trouser has nothing to do with salvation, heaven or hell. Or so i strongly think.

Emary:
The first recorded reports of trousers were made by sixth century BC Greek geographers. They noted the appearance of Persian, Eastern and Central Asian horse riders. The comfort they provided from extended periods on horseback made trousers a practical choice.

Images of male and female horse riders wearing trousers can be found on ancient ceramics. You can see an example of this on the vase to the left, depicting an Amazon woman. - A brief history of trousers.

missimelda01:
Any woman that wears a man's trouser is maybe insane

There are trousers meant for women only
Don't confuse yourself brethren, stop trying to be an assistant Jesus. I come in peace

Sometimes you think you've seen or read it all, then someone comes out with another, smh, so if my missus puts on or when she wears my trousers you think she's maybe insane?

Emary:
It is very simple. Trousers were designed for comfort during horseback riding, right? For centuries, mostly men went to war while women stayed at home nuturing their offspring so women preferred to wear feminine flowing clothing. Today, both men and women go to war and horses are hardly used as means of transport. Women are however far more active and mobile than before moving long distance to work then come back home to do other activities, They will require clothing that makes them move freely with comfort. Trousers do that.

For me, as long as trousers are not too form fitting (this applies all clothing) and a woman cannot be mistaken for a man and vice versa, there is nothing wrong with them. Let every man work out his own salvation.

[img]https://s6/images/orijinbitters.jpg[/img]
Word. Gbam.

Somebody please pass this my madam, Emary, this chilled bottle of orijin. Plus send her a truckload of kolanuts as well and after that, consider her sharp sharp, next governor of her state of origin.

One of a timely, needful and meaningful, brutal honest truth, of what Deuteronomy 22:5 is all about that I have ever being opportune another poster will hint for me to read. Right on point on that emboldened account. Wehdone Ma'am! Please drink responsibly though

OrdinaryPeeps:
So, is it proper for ladies to wear trousers?

Is it proper for gentlemen to wear skirts, or put on a wrapper, even roll a towel round the lower half of the body?

Why does God hate people who do such things, as a woman wearing men’s clothing and a man wearing women’s clothing, as mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:5? I invite OrdinaryPeeps, jmoore, Righteousness89, AkinwaleJJ, ggirl4real, Emary, Image123 et al, to do a robust exegete and hermeneutic on Deuteronomy 22:5 please, explicitly explaining in clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for doubt or confusion, the reason why Deuteronomy 22:5 states that God hates people who do such things, as a woman wearing men’s clothing and a man wearing women’s clothing, as mentioned in that Deuteronomy 22:5 verse. Thanks in advance y'all.

Emary:
There has always been poverty and it will always exist. Women have also done a lot of so called men's work over the centuries. A lot of women have not only gone to war, tilled farms, fended for their families jwhen their husbands were dead, incapitated or away but lead battles over the centuries in all the continents. You can interpret the bible verse as you please but there is no reference to trousers as male garments in any scripture at all. If you consider trousers unholy for women, men should also not wear tunics or kaftans which are gowns. God did not design clothing. Man (both sexes) did that to cover his shame after eating the forbidden fruit.

I invite OrdinaryPeeps, jmoore, Righteousness89, AkinwaleJJ, ggirl4real, Emary, Image123 et al, to tell us:
1/ What's common between Bobrisky and Denrele?
2/ What's the difference between Bobrisky and Denrele?

MuttleyLaff:
I invite OrdinaryPeeps, jmoore, Righteousness89, AkinwaleJJ, ggirl4real, Emary, Image123 et al, to tell us:
1/ What's common between Bobrisky and Denrele?
2/ What's the difference between Bobrisky and Denrele?

Probably the name? Seriously, i don't know much about the two asides seeing the name a couple of times on NL frontpage.

Image123:
Probably the name? Seriously, i don't know much about the two asides seeing the name a couple of times on NL frontpage.

C'mon Image123, you can do quite a lot better than this feeble, effortless and below par attempt. There is the unmistakable common thing about Bobrisky and Denrele. There is also the honest not fooling the public difference between Bobrisky and Denrele.

MuttleyLaff:
C'mon Image123, you can do quite a lot better than this feeble, effortless and below par attempt. There is the unmistakable common thing about Bobrisky and Denrele. There is also the honest not fooling the public difference between Bobrisky and Denrele.

Really i don't know them. If i saw them today, i would not recognise them. Are they very important to this thread, i was thread was "closed" already though.

Image123:
Really i don't know them. If i saw them today, i would not recognise them.

Google is ever a willing friend. Ask Google to help you out with the names: Bobrisky and Denrele, lmso.

Image123:
Are they very important to this thread, i was thread was "closed" already though.

They are not just important to this thread, but are also relevant to it and have a great lot to do with what Deuteronomy 22:5 is all about and/or talking of, especially that Bobrisky persona.

Trousers is a modern day fashion, it's unisex, so it belongs to both genders!

MaxInDHouse:
Trousers is a modern day fashion, it's unisex, so it belongs to both genders!

Greek alabastron, a pottery vessel circa 470 BC, depicting a female warrior wearing highly functional trousers
(i.e. a small type of pottery or glass vessel used in the ancient world for holding oil, especially perfume or massage oils)

Please, anyone, tell what is the recurrent feature showing in the following bible verses: Ruth 3:9, 1 Samuel 24:5, Ezekiel 16:8 & Zechariah 8:23?

MuttleyLaff:
I invite OrdinaryPeeps, jmoore, Righteousness89, AkinwaleJJ, ggirl4real, Emary, Image123 et al, to tell us:
1/ What's common between Bobrisky and Denrele?
2/ What's the difference between Bobrisky and Denrele?

Common: Both are men

Difference: Denrele obviously dresses like a man, though it may be weird but Bobrisky is a cross dresser.

Image123:


A grown human being is asking for the difference between underwear and outerwear.

Oga, learn to express yourself without insults.

For churches that forbid their women from wearing trousers, what differentiates trousers from tights? Doesn't both wears have two partings for the legs? Some even wear shorts underneath, what makes that right and the other wrong?