trousers for females.....?? i hav less to say...but speak to every heavenly minded female on this thread ..'GOD WANTS YOU WITH HIM AND TO MAKE IT THROUGH HEAVEN'S GATE...PUT AWAY TROUSERS AND EVERY IMMORAL CLOTHING' .tnks God loves you all.

tribeofdavid: trousers for females.....?? i hav less to say...but speak to every heavenly minded female on this thread ..'GOD WANTS YOU WITH HIM AND TO MAKE IT THROUGH HEAVEN'S GATE...PUT AWAY TROUSERS AND EVERY IMMORAL CLOTHING' .tnks God loves you all.

Trousers are not immoral, infact they cover up more than skirts.

Also John 3:3 lays down a standard for making heaven and not your assumption

In Nigeria you find people mixing and teaching their personal ideas /experience as gospel. That's why most of these ministries only have Nigerians in their churches abroad.
We must love one another and stop promoting our selfish views as gospel
Those who think they are the only one that's holy because of selfish views are hopeless.

I love this trouser or no trouser for ladies discussion because it exposes the underbelly of the hypocricy of the modern church and would help a sincere seeker of grace and salvation find the truth.

The anti female trouser brigade readily quote this verse

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
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.

But how faithful are they to this verse below?

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What about the farm owners who speak against females wearing trousers? Do they also take heed to this verse?

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

When I showed one of them who also insists on monetary tithes from all income this verse, he said the verse only mentioned vineyard and not all farms. When I told him all tithe verses in the old testament only mentioned farm and livestock products, he started the usual scriptural gymnastics of Abraham's tithe which was clearly of war spoils and nothing from his own farm or animal increase.

The modern charismatics would tell you they are not under the law hence all these rules in Deuteronomy 22 do not apply to them but they remember to go to Leviticus for first fruits and Malachi for tithes.

The confusion is easily resolved if we understand this verse

Galatians 3:24-25 KJV
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. [25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

We've been brought to Christ because we realise we can't keep the law. We are now led by the Spirit to do things that please God so a Christian woman will be modest and well covered in dressing so she doesn't become a stumbling block to others.

We don't live by a rule book as Christians but by the leading of the Holy Spirit. We can't keep the law because if you break one, you break all. Some collect tithes and first fruits while neglecting feast of weeks, tabernacles etc. Some females avoid trousers but wear blouse made from linen and cotton or wool. It amounts to sheer hypocricy my people.

Let the Spirit lead and you'll find yourself at peace with God

Galatians 5:16 KJV
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

I personally believe the problem is knowing what a man's clothing is and a waoman's clothing is, and if it is dependent on culture or not. That would solve the whole issue.

Candour: I love this trouser or no trouser for ladies discussion because it exposes the underbelly of the hypocricy of the modern church and would help a sincere seeker of grace and salvation find the truth.

NO. you hardly see modern churches that preach againt it, and those who preach agaainst it do so on the premise of sincerly seeking grace and truth that leads to heaven, afterall, they don't preach against it to take anybody to hell.

The anti female trouser brigade readily quote this verse

Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
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.

But how faithful are they to this verse below?

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What about the farm owners who speak against females wearing trousers? Do they also take heed to this verse?

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

maybe you need to dig more into scrpitures, you may be sincerly wrong, may God enlighten us. Deut22:5 ends with, "for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." None of the other verses you quoted (9,11) makes an isrealite an abomination to his God like a man putting on that which pertaineth to a woman- AGREE?
Cross referencing scripture shows us how God sees abomination.
Prov 15:8
8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight. Obviously, a sinner is wicked, and the wicked is an abomination to God, this follows that- Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
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 -that is are wicked, sinners. check the opposite of it in prov15:8-the prayer of the upright - such people dont do abominable things.
prov15:9 explains better.
9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but (opposite of a wicked abominable person)he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Any one who wears that which pertaineth to the opposite sex according to Deut22:5 is ABOMINABLE AND WICKED, AND IS NOT UPRIGHT NEITHER IS HE/SHE FOLLOWING AFTER RIGHTEOUSNESS(according to prov15:8,9) AGREE?
Whats the end of the abominable? HELL FIRE/LAKE OF FIRE.
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
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
Rev 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Further, the bible didnt mince words and emphasises the issue of abomination and its end.
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
KJV
I guess the Bible stand is clear for a sincere seeker.
Is wearing that which pertaineth to the opposite sex(deut 22:5) a sin? Doing abomination is obviously a sin, check that it is always mentioned in connection to other sins- Rev 21:8

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, ......
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie .....
Bible also mentions it with wickedness,pride, lieing, murder and many other atrocities.prov6:16-19, 8:7,16:5,12. Obviously, birds of the same feather flock together.
After Reading all these, whats your decision, to still keep living an abominable life, or to make a change. I may look dificcult, but ask for grace, and you will receive. Remenber, " And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Matt 11:12
KJV. By God's grace, all sincere folks will not miss Heaven in Jesus name.

[/quote]

Rhymeyjohn: I personally believe the problem is knowing what a man's clothing is and a waoman's clothing is, and if it is dependent on culture or not. That would solve the whole issue.

So If its dependent on culture, The indian woman, the scottish man, the Arab woman to name a few do nothing wrong with their dressing right? why then blanket condemnation from almost all so called holiness churches? i'm sure you can name some of these ministries yourself right?

NO. you hardly see modern churches that preach againt it, and those who preach agaainst it do so on the premise of sincerly seeking grace and truth that leads to heaven, afterall, they don't preach against it to take anybody to hell.

Of course the modern churches in their gaiety would not preach it as it would affect their numbers. So some of them encourage women not to wear it when they are working in church but can wear it to school, work etc. If that is not hypocrisy, tell me what is

maybe you need to dig more into scrpitures, you may be sincerly wrong, may God enlighten us. Deut22:5 ends with, "for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God." None of the other verses you quoted (9,11) makes an isrealite an abomination to his God like a man putting on that which pertaineth to a woman- AGREE?
Cross referencing scripture shows us how God sees abomination.
Prov 15:8
8 The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the LORD: but the prayer of the upright is his delight. Obviously, a sinner is wicked, and the wicked is an abomination to God, this follows that- Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
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 -that is are wicked, sinners. check the opposite of it in prov15:8-the prayer of the upright - such people dont do abominable things.
prov15:9 explains better.
9 The way of the wicked is an abomination unto the LORD: but (opposite of a wicked abominable person)he loveth him that followeth after righteousness.
Any one who wears that which pertaineth to the opposite sex according to Deut22:5 is ABOMINABLE AND WICKED, AND IS NOT UPRIGHT NEITHER IS HE/SHE FOLLOWING AFTER RIGHTEOUSNESS(according to prov15:8,9) AGREE?
Whats the end of the abominable? HELL FIRE/LAKE OF FIRE.
Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV
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
Rev 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Further, the bible didnt mince words and emphasises the issue of abomination and its end.
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
KJV
I guess the Bible stand is clear for a sincere seeker.
Is wearing that which pertaineth to the opposite sex(deut 22:5) a sin? Doing abomination is obviously a sin, check that it is always mentioned in connection to other sins- Rev 21:8

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, ......
Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie .....
Bible also mentions it with wickedness,pride, lieing, murder and many other atrocities.prov6:16-19, 8:7,16:5,12. Obviously, birds of the same feather flock together.
After Reading all these, whats your decision, to still keep living an abominable life, or to make a change. I may look dificcult, but ask for grace, and you will receive. Remenber, " And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. Matt 11:12
KJV. By God's grace, all sincere folks will not miss Heaven in Jesus name.

My dear brother, this is very selective and biased interpretation

see the verses again. pls pay attention to the bolded portions

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

So you mean i should avoid anywhere God said abomination, but even if he said thou shalt not or calls a particular action defiled, i can ignore?

My bro, this your explanation does not hold up AT ALL.

Infact, see one of the verses you quoted

Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

can you see that God doesnt also like things that are defiled?

The only reason why i'm free from all these rules, regulations and ordinances of the Torah is the finished work on the cross of Calvary.

Rom 10:4
'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'

Not because abomination was not used to describe some of them

Candour:

So If its dependent on culture, The indian woman, the scottish man, the Arab woman to name a few do nothing wrong with their dressing right? why then blanket condemnation from almost all so called holiness churches? i'm sure you can name some of these ministries yourself right?




Of course the modern churches in their gaiety would not preach it as it would affect their numbers. So some of them encourage women not to wear it when they are working in church but can wear it to school, work etc. If that is not hypocrisy, tell me what is



My dear brother, this is very selective and biased interpretation

see the verses again. pls pay attention to the bolded portions

Deuteronomy 22:11 KJV
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

Deuteronomy 22:9 KJV
Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled.

So you mean i should avoid anywhere God said abomination, but even if he said thou shalt not or calls a particular action defiled, i can ignore?

My bro, this your explanation does not hold up AT ALL.

Infact, see one of the verses you quoted

Rev 21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it [i.e heaven] any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

can you see that God doesnt also like things that are defiled?

The only reason why i'm free from all these rules, regulations and ordinances of the Torah is the finished work on the cross of Calvary.

Rom 10:4
'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'

Not because abomination was not used to describe some of them

Thank you for this, their hypocrisy is becoming clearer and clearer.

haibe:

you didn't answer my question.

who made shirt a unisex cloth?

If shirt can be a unisex clothing, why can't trousers be a unisex clothing too?

No, either a male started wearing it or a female started wearing it.

So who is the sinner for wearing it later on, male or female

i answered na. You said "Who made shirt a unisex cloth?"i said Everyone has being wearing them since forever.
"If shirt can be a unisex clothing, why can't trousers be a unisex clothing too?" Because it is a male clothing, like the bra is female for instance.
A shirt is a cloth garment for the upper body. SHIRT 1 : a garment for the upper part of the body: Like some of your argument line, we do not see the word "shirt'' in the Bible, the kjv that is. But it is general knowledge since that everyone wears them. All upper body garments are shirts. So, technically, except somebody is clothless, the person is wearing a shirt.
Note that i'm not talking about sin or no sin, we are talking about whether the trouser belongs to men or to women, try to stay on point.

haibe:

Either a male or a female, Assuming it's the male which seems obvious, so who is the sinner. the male or the female?

You cannot just make such assumptions. Every upper garment is a shirt in a sense.

haibe:

Trousers are not immoral, infact they cover up more than skirts.

Indeed??

haibe:

Thank you for this, their hypocrisy is becoming clearer and clearer.

Is it good for women to put on what you call male trousers?

Image123:



i answered na. You said "Who made shirt a unisex cloth?"i said Everyone has being wearing them since forever.
.

Everyone has been wearing shirt since forever?? Even Jesus wore shirts?

Did everyone start wearing shirts the same time? Who started wearing it first?

Image123:
"If shirt can be a unisex clothing, why can't trousers be a unisex clothing too?" Because it is a male clothing, like the bra is female for instance.
.

Who made trousers a male's clothing?

Are you aware we have trousers for male and trousers for females just like we have shirts for males and shirts for females??

Image123:
A shirt is a cloth garment for the upper body . SHIRT 1 : a garment for the upper part of the body: Like some of your argument line, we do not see the word "shirt'' in the Bible, the kjv that is. But it is general knowledge since that everyone wears them. All upper body garments are shirts. So, technically, except somebody is clothless, the person is wearing a shirt.
Note that i'm not talking about sin or no sin, we are talking about whether the trouser belongs to men or to women, try to stay on point.

This is a very unsound way of thinking, so because shirts are meant for the upper body means all upper body garments are shirts??

Am amazed at this, my mum wore a buba out today which is an upper garment, so my mum's buba is a shirt?? really??

So we can as well say because trousers are meant for the lower body, all lower body garments are trousers?? including skirts??

lol, then no argument left.

Image123:
You cannot just make such assumptions. Every upper garment is a shirt in a sense.

Wrong bro! very wrong! don't use the dictionary as an atom of confusion, the dictionary wouldn't even tell you every upper garments are shirts.

haibe:

Everyone has been wearing shirt since forever?? Even Jesus wore shirts?

Did everyone start wearing shirts the same time? Who started wearing it first?

Yes to all the questions.

haibe:

Who made trousers a male's clothing?

Are you aware we have trousers for male and trousers for females just like we have shirts for males and shirts for females??

Is it good for women to put on what you call male trousers?

Image123:
Is it good for women to put on what you call male trousers?

People need to be saved, they need help and encouragement and you are talking rubbish about Trouser, lol.

This is how religion makes people 'dumb'.

haibe:

This is a very unsound way of thinking, so because shirts are meant for the upper body means all upper body garments are shirts??

Am amazed at this, my mum wore a buba out today which is an upper garment, so my mum's buba is a shirt?? really??

So we can as well say because trousers are meant for the lower body, all lower body garments are trousers?? including skirts??

lol, then no argument left.

Wrong bro! very wrong! don't use the dictionary as an atom of confusion, the dictionary wouldn't even tell you every upper garments are shirts.

hehehehe, i did not mention dictionary na. i guess you went to check a dictionary, right? You're being emotional about this, you do not need to refer to alternate views as unsound and irrational na, bro. All upper body garments are technically shirts. For fashion purposes, you can begin to make differentiations though. Why, like someone said, do people have very strong issues on this matter if indeed it is nothing? If the believer is so free, he/she should be free enough to do without something of controversy. Instead it is the other way round, they cannot do without or even think of doing without it.
2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
1Co 8:13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Why is this attitude unheard of amongst so called liberated believers. Instead, they are ready to show off their new found freedom and force it into the faces, psyche and mindset of the unspiritual/weaker

frosbel:


People need to be saved, they need help and encouragement and you are talking rubbish about Trouser, lol.

This is how religion makes people 'dumb'.

hehehehe, you just realised this ba? You seem to be the hypocrite, i guess you have seen the hypocrisy of your position that is why you choose not to answer. People need to be saved and encouraged and all you spend your life doing is talking tithes and talking about people leaving their church to no where exactly? You who is not interested in heaven or going there, you are here discouraging others and calling people who are not your mates in any level names. You need help. i pity those who follow you or are convinced by you in any issue, really.

Image123:
hehehehe, i did not mention dictionary na. i guess you went to check a dictionary, right?

So please where did you get your definition of shirt being an upper garment or that all upper garments are shirts?

I guess its your assumption though.

Image123:
Is it good for women to put on what you call male trousers?

its not bad, my former campus pastor is putting it on everyday since she began her youth corper service and none of those hypocrites go to condemn her because they know she is saved obviously.

Image123:
Yes to all the questions.

Can you prove to me that Jesus wore a shirt or that Adam and eve wore a shirt?

Image123:

hehehehe, you just realised this ba? You seem to be the hypocrite, i guess you have seen the hypocrisy of your position that is why you choose not to answer. People need to be saved and encouraged and all you spend your life doing is talking tithes and talking about people leaving their church to no where exactly? You who is not interested in heaven or going there, you are here discouraging others and calling people who are not your mates in any level names. You need help. i pity those who follow you or are convinced by you in any issue, really.

Many have been set free from the false doctrines that you have come to represent :

Tithes : They can now spend on their needs and help others - Pass
Hell fire : They no longer believe in a god who is a monster and will roast them for eternity - Pass
Traditions : They are no longer under the bondage of man tradition that wants to control their dress, they way they speak, their friends etc - Pass
Heaven : Many people now know that the destination for believers is not heaven but a new earth and heaven - Pass


Feed on this and enjoy.

Image123:
Yes to all the questions.

You're very wrong image. The standard clothes a male wore at the time of Jesus was a robe. Ropes or belts were used to hold them in place, not buttons and they surely didn't have shirts. In fact your dictionary should have told you the word 'shirt' is of middle English of around the 12th century AD and even at that, KJV of 1611 has no record of an article called a shirt yet garment that entered English in 16th century is mentioned in KJV

When you checked your dictionary for shirt, did you remember to check for blouse? Jacket? Because its very obvious you went to Merriam webster dictionary for that definition. Even the punctuation marks there give you away

Image123:
SHIRT 1 : a garment for the upper part of the body:

Also like haibe asked, is the Buba his mum wore also a shirt? I noticed you skipped this particular question

Image123 will 'never' get it , he is so entrenched in the institutional church and religious system .

smh

frosbel:

Many have been set free from the false doctrines that you have come to represent :

Tithes : They can now spend on their needs and help others - Pass
Hell fire : They no longer believe in a god who is a monster and will roast them for eternity - Pass
Traditions : They are no longer under the bondage of man tradition that wants to control their dress, they way they speak, their friends etc - Pass
Heaven : Many people now know that the destination for believers is not heaven but a new earth and heaven - Pass


Feed on this and enjoy.

Its a fulfillment of prophecy. it is those that ENDURE to the end that are saved.
2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways ; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

Candour:

You're very wrong image. The standard clothes a male wore at the time of Jesus was a robe. Ropes or belts were used to hold them in place, not buttons and they surely didn't have shirts. In fact your dictionary should have told you the word 'shirt' is of middle English of around the 12th century AD and even at that, KJV of 1611 has no record of an article called a shirt yet garment that entered English in 16th century is mentioned in KJV

When you checked your dictionary for shirt, did you remember to check for blouse? Jacket? Because its very obvious you went to Merriam webster dictionary for that definition. Even the punctuation marks there give you away

So, the qualification of a shirt is that it has buttons? All upper garments are basically or generally shirts. Like i said, it is fashion that now gives specific differential names. The point is that there are clothing that are unisex and there are some that are not. The shirt is unisex, the belt is unisex, the shoe is unisex. The bra is not, at least not yet. Plaiting of the hair is still not unisex generally. The trouser did not use to be, some few decades ago. i really wonder how difficult that is to comprehend.

Also like haibe asked, is the Buba his mum wore also a shirt? I noticed you skipped this particular question

Didin't skip the question. i already said that all upper garments are shirts, basically.

Image123:
So, the qualification of a shirt is that it has buttons? All upper garments are basically or generally shirts. Like i said, it is fashion that now gives specific differential names. The point is that there are clothing that are unisex and there are some that are not. The shirt is unisex, the belt is unisex, the shoe is unisex. The bra is not, at least not yet. Plaiting of the hair is still not unisex generally. The trouser did not use to be, some few decades ago. i really wonder how difficult that is to comprehend..

If belts which was arguably worn by men first becomes unisex, why can't trousers become unisex?

haibe:

So please where did you get your definition of shirt being an upper garment or that all upper garments are shirts?

I guess its your assumption though.

It is general and basic knowledge. thankfully, the dictionary ALSO confirms that.

its not bad, my former campus pastor is putting it on everyday since she began her youth corper service and none of those hypocrites go to condemn her because they know she is saved obviously.

Like i said, you are being unnecessarily emotional with this issue. i do not see the reason why you will call your fellow brethren hypocrites because they do not have the understanding that you have on an issue. An understanding which BTW you just obtained recently. We do not all have the same level of understanding or revelation, and you do not need to label others for not being like you. You were like them if not worse for many years. Well, to your answer, it is bad according to Deut 22v5 which is my point all along. Or what then does Deut 22v5 mean?

Can you prove to me that Jesus wore a shirt or that Adam and eve wore a shirt?

But i doubt that you can prove that they did not wear one na. If every upper garment is a shirt, then they did wear shirts. Maybe not like what you wear today. They did eat bread too, but perhaps not like what you eat as bread today.

Image123:
Didin't skip the question. i already said that all upper garments are shirts, basically.

Is a buba a shirt?
Is a blose a shirt?
Is a singlet a shirt?
Is a coat a shirt?

haibe:

If belts which was arguably worn by men first becomes unisex, why can't trousers become unisex?

belts were worn by men first? Where? Oh you're are assuming.