Lumie08:

No matter the level God deals with people, His yes will be yes and his no will be no.
Whatever is a sin is a sin.

If God says I shouldn't marry, it becomes an automatic sin for everyone.
How wise.

bizmahn: Once a trouser is seductive & has the potentials of provoking sinful lust in gullible or even innocent men,God will not hold that lady guiltless whether we agree or not.And yes there is seductive ungodly & immoral trousers.

I've never for once seen any woman that understands God's sinless holiness & is zealous for sinless purity from God wearing trousers.Its called going the extra mile & its not for everyone.

Skirts can also be seductive. In fact, we have more seductive skirts these days than trousers. The bible says we should test every knowledge, so don't just accept any teaching or prophesy. Think through. Gullible people like you are the reason for the child/witch syndrome in akwa ibom state. Where some satanic prophets tags an innocent persons as witches and the next thing such a person would be beaten to pulp or even killed. Those men who tag trouser wearing females as being on their way to hell would never buy female trousers for themselves when they go shopping. Why not wear female trousers since all trousers are meant for men. Rubbish!

agoha_vivi: Skirts can also be seductive. In fact, we have more seductive skirts these days than trousers. The bible says we should test every knowledge, so don't just accept any teaching or prophesy. Think through. Gullible people like you are the reason for the child/witch syndrome in akwa ibom state. Where some satanic prophets tags an innocent persons as witches and the next thing such a person would be beaten to pulp or even killed. Those men who tag trouser wearing females as being on their way to hell would never buy female trousers for themselves when they go shopping. Why not wear female trousers since all trousers are meant for men. Rubbish!

Beautiful.
You're blessed.

Some Christians need serious brain deworming....

haibe:

That's the problem that happens when we don't read previous comments before commenting.

Do you even know what this thread is all about?

.....

udopee: Why are worldly women so crazy about trousers or pants and men are not crazy about putting on skirt and blouse That is a little question to ask yourself to show you that it is not ordinary....
Deuteronomy 22:5...

lolz Nigeria and its interpretation of the scripture. All who supports ladies wearing modest and decent trousers are right and more enlightened.
However, the essence of that verse is to prevent transgender and transsexual dressing. That is to prevent men from wearing things designated for women or to make them look like a woman to a man. Also, on the other hand it is to prevent women or ladies from wearing clothes designated only for men where waring them will be deceitful and present them as a man.
A simple hypothesis of this verse during the medieval period is this: men and women wear garments and robes; men's robes are plain without adornments. On the other hand women's garments are stylish, colourful and more adorned. It was easier to differentiate based on adornments of garments then. So it creates confusion and deceit when a lady wear a man's robe and a man wears a lady's adorned garment. Such was the essence of the verse to stop the anomaly.
In our modern times, a tomboy will never qualify for a guy to a reasonable man, she may have a guy's stature or looks, yet her clothing will give her away easily as a lady because she wasn't dressed in a guy's body hug or overall shirts or a trouser designed for men by Versace, D&G, Bosch et al. The designer factor says it all.
Likewise it is prohibitive for a man to wear a ladies trouser, pants, shirts no matter what fundamental and exclusive right he has to wear trousers and the likes, wearing a designated wear for ladies vilates Deut, 22:5 no matter the levels of similarity and vice-versa.

Religious people are among those Christ spoke against.
Those who wanted to stone the woman who committed adultery
The holier than thou's.....................
And cause I love Christ I will speak against those of the present day.

Lumie08:

yeah. It is about you speading ur idea which might be different from Gods judgment and which might end up misleading people.

So @op, be sure it is Gods judgement u are spreading cos your argument doesnt count and does not change him.

I rest my case

So tell me, it is God's judgement that all ladies on trousers would go to hell?

btw, why are you quick to judge me that I am spreading my idea? Like I have said go and start reading from page one to understand better, shalom!

agoha_vivi: Skirts can also be seductive. In fact, we have more seductive skirts these days than trousers. The bible says we should test every knowledge, so don't just accept any teaching or prophesy. Think through. Gullible people like you are the reason for the child/witch syndrome in akwa ibom state. Where some satanic prophets tags an innocent persons as witches and the next thing such a person would be beaten to pulp or even killed. Those men who tag trouser wearing females as being on their way to hell would never buy female trousers for themselves when they go shopping. Why not wear female trousers since all trousers are meant for men. Rubbish!

Preach it, girl.

Wearing trousers is a sin, wearing makeup is a sin, wearing jewelry is a sin. In fact, women wearing any kind of clothes should be tagged a sin as well. The selective and biased interpretation of the Bible by some overzealous Christians just never ends.

sonickay: lolz Nigeria and its interpretation of the scripture. All who supports ladies wearing modest and decent trousers are right and more enlightened.
However, the essence of that verse is to prevent transgender and transsexual dressing. That is to prevent men from wearing things designated for women or to make them look like a woman to a man. Also, on the other hand it is to prevent women or ladies from wearing clothes designated only for men where waring them will be deceitful and present them as a man.
A simple hypothesis of this verse during the medieval period is this: men and women wear garments and robes; men's robes are plain without adornments. On the other hand women's garments are stylish, colourful and more adorned. It was easier to differentiate based on adornments of garments then. So it creates confusion and deceit when a lady wear a man's robe and a man wears a lady's adorned garment. Such was the essence of the verse to stop the anomaly.
In our modern times, a tomboy will never qualify for a guy to a reasonable man, she may have a guy's stature or looks, yet her clothing will give her away easily as a lady because she wasn't dressed in a guy's body hug or overall shirts or a trouser designed for men by Versace, D&G, Bosch et al. The designer factor says it all.
Likewise it is prohibitive for a man to wear a ladies trouser, pants, shirts no matter what fundamental and exclusive right he has to wear trousers and the likes, wearing a designated wear for ladies vilates Deut, 22:5 no matter the levels of similarity and vice-versa.

Another Blessed Person.
May God bless you.

sonickay: lolz Nigeria and its interpretation of the scripture. All who supports ladies wearing modest and decent trousers are right and more enlightened.
However, the essence of that verse is to prevent transgender and transsexual dressing. That is to prevent men from wearing things designated for women or to make them look like a woman to a man. Also, on the other hand it is to prevent women or ladies from wearing clothes designated only for men where waring them will be deceitful and present them as a man.
A simple hypothesis of this verse during the medieval period is this: men and women wear garments and robes; men's robes are plain without adornments. On the other hand women's garments are stylish, colourful and more adorned. It was easier to differentiate based on adornments of garments then. So it creates confusion and deceit when a lady wear a man's robe and a man wears a lady's adorned garment. Such was the essence of the verse to stop the anomaly.
In our modern times, a tomboy will never qualify for a guy to a reasonable man, she may have a guy's stature or looks, yet her clothing will give her away easily as a lady because she wasn't dressed in a guy's body hug or overall shirts or a trouser designed for men by Versace, D&G, Bosch et al. The designer factor says it all.
Likewise it is prohibitive for a man to wear a ladies trouser, pants, shirts no matter what fundamental and exclusive right he has to wear trousers and the likes, wearing a designated wear for ladies vilates Deut, 22:5 no matter the levels of similarity and vice-versa.

Thanks for this enlightenment. .

Truely this doctrine is rampant in nigeria than any where else and that's because most nigerians are just legalists and gullible.

sonickay: lolz Nigeria and its interpretation of the scripture. All who supports ladies wearing modest and decent trousers are right and more enlightened.
However, the essence of that verse is to prevent transgender and transsexual dressing. That is to prevent men from wearing things designated for women or to make them look like a woman to a man. Also, on the other hand it is to prevent women or ladies from wearing clothes designated only for men where waring them will be deceitful and present them as a man.
A simple hypothesis of this verse during the medieval period is this: men and women wear garments and robes; men's robes are plain without adornments. On the other hand women's garments are stylish, colourful and more adorned. It was easier to differentiate based on adornments of garments then. So it creates confusion and deceit when a lady wear a man's robe and a man wears a lady's adorned garment. Such was the essence of the verse to stop the anomaly.
In our modern times, a tomboy will never qualify for a guy to a reasonable man, she may have a guy's stature or looks, yet her clothing will give her away easily as a lady because she wasn't dressed in a guy's body hug or overall shirts or a trouser designed for men by Versace, D&G, Bosch et al. The designer factor says it all.
Likewise it is prohibitive for a man to wear a ladies trouser, pants, shirts no matter what fundamental and exclusive right he has to wear trousers and the likes, wearing a designated wear for ladies vilates Deut, 22:5 no matter the levels of similarity and vice-versa.

Thanks for this enlightenment. .

Truely this doctrine is rampant in nigeria than any where else and that's because most nigerians are just legalists and gullible.

AdannayaBella:
Preach it, girl.

Wearing trousers is a sin, wearing makeup is a sin, wearing jewelry is a sin. In fact, women wearing any kind of clothes should be tagged a sin as well. The selective and biased interpretation of the Bible by some overzealous Christians just never ends.

Hallelujah, the witnesses are speaking out..
They want to turn us ladies to the World's rejects. I renounce it...
Some even go as far as saying deodorant is not allowed, powder is not allowed, may God open our eyes of understanding. May He grant us the grace to renew our minds daily in accordance with the Word.

Nomski0: I love this! Very mature arguement....and kinda funny.

Also logical

My God didn't call me to bondage but to Freedom in Christ.

I was once like them, hypocrites.
When I stepped into the real Christianity, I felt bad cause I had deprived myself of many spiritual blessings.
Those who I was condemning were even the movers and shakers of the spiritual world.
Now I'm growing the right way, and the Love and power of God has never been so evident.

Now I'm free and I'm free indeed.
And I won't let any Christian suffer under these men doctrine upholders.

haibe:

I don't know if or why worldly women are crazy about pants.

the focal point here is, ladies putting on decent trousers is not a sin.

Bros., the truth is; man's opinion does not count when GOD speak, HE is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. HE changes not neither do HIS laws and commandments, even HIS SON Jesus said that He has not come to change the laws or commandments of the Father but that rather He came to ''FULFILL'' them. He did not even modify any. So why all the modifications that we as Christians are allowing today? to justify ourselves, is it not? but self righteousness and moral justification is like a filthy rag before GOD, says the bible. Why have we forgotten, ''Obedience is better than sacrifice.'' Why are we selective of the laws we strictly keep and water down, modify and dilute others just to suit our selfish,carnal and sensual motives? If you keep 9 of the 10 laws and break one, you are as bad as the man who keeps non, says the bible. Deut.22:5 is so clear, self explanatory and on point that we do not even need a special man of GOD to demystify it for us here. Mind you, no man can STAND before GOD not to talk of argue with HIM. Here is the only place you can argue for and defend yourself by living righteously and obeying HIS laws and commandments implicitly while you are still alive. If GOD condemns your acts and deeds, who will you appeal to? So let us be wise and careful.

ugotuf:
Bros., the truth is; man's opinion does not count when GOD speak, HE is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. HE changes not neither do HIS laws and commandments, even HIS SON Jesus said that He has not come to change the laws or commandments of the Father but that rather He came to ''FULFILL'' them. He did not even modify any. So why all the modifications that we as Christians are allowing today? to justify ourselves, is it not? but self righteousness and moral justification is like a filthy rag before GOD, says the bible. Why have we forgotten, ''Obedience is better than sacrifice.'' Why are we selective of the laws we strictly keep and water down, modify and dilute others just to suit our selfish,carnal and sensual motives? If you keep 9 of the 10 laws and break one, you are as bad as the man who keeps non, says the bible. Deut.22:5 is so clear, self explanatory and on point that we do not even need a special man of GOD to demystify it for us here. Mind you, no man can STAND before GOD not to talk of argue with HIM. Here is the only place you can argue for and defend yourself by living righteously and obeying HIS laws and commandments implicitly while you are still alive. If GOD condemns your acts and deeds, who will you appeal to? So let us be wise and careful.

Trousers wasn't mentioned in the bible.
That is even the least thing on His mind.
Christ never for once mentioned a thing about dressing... Go figure.....
And wonder why you still stick to a law and neglect others...

So Deut 22 verse 5 is also a moral law which the undefiled human conscience still practises in many places around the world. Not to rehash what has already been said, you can note that it is only in the last 5 plus decades that this moral decadence from the west has become commonplace..which is not strange because the bible said it would be so.

Regarding the talk about Arabian women and Scottish kilts and so on ..think of it this way..there are male garments and female garments in every custom. Therefore, whenever a person dresses customarily, cross-dressing in that custom's context is abominable. However there are common sense limitations..that means there are some customary garments that cross the line God's decency and must not be worn. Now some say there are female and male trousers. Suffice it to say that if the Word of God in Deut 22:5was not trampled on and disregarded in the 1920's and upwards because women bagan doing men's jobs, there would be no grounds for female trousers. So continuing in them is continuing the flagrant disregard of the Word of God that started in the 1920s regarding this issue.

It remains immoral and ungodly for women to do men's jobs that make them have to wear men's clothes. It blurs the sexual distinctions God made for a woman to be feminine and a man masculine. in the light of this it is still an abomination for a woman to be a grave digger or palm wine tapper. It is still immoral and ungodly for people to wear unisex clothings for the same reasons. These are the reasons why lesbianism and homosexuality are very rampant today.

It is still sinful and immoral for christian female youth corpers to wear ajuwaya trousers regardless of the government policy. There is a reason Christians were persecuted in the early church for their stand against certain common practices. If you notice, exceptions are made for strong Muslims who refuse to wear some aspects of the youth corper's uniform as provided..why not do the same or Christians too?

The truth is that cross dressing trouser wearing for women is of the world. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. -1 John 2:15

If you love the world, the love of the Father, the Holy Ghost is not in you, and that means you are not even born again even if you speak in tongues.

SisterMe: So Deut 22 verse 5 is also a moral law which the undefiled human conscience still practises in many places around the world. Not to rehash what has already been said, you can note that it is only in the last 5 plus decades that this moral decadence from the west has become commonplace..which is not strange because the bible said it would be so.

Regarding the talk about Arabian women and Scottish kilts and so on ..think of it this way..there are male garments and female garments in every custom. Therefore, whenever a person dresses customarily, cross-dressing in that custom's context is abominable. However there are common sense limitations..that means there are some customary garments that cross the line God's decency and must not be worn. Now some say there are female and male trousers. Suffice it to say that if the Word of God in Deut 22:5was not trampled on and disregarded in the 1920's and upwards because women bagan doing men's jobs, there would be no grounds for female trousers. So continuing in them is continuing the flagrant disregard of the Word of God that started in the 1920s regarding this issue.

It remains immoral and ungodly for women to do men's jobs that make them have to wear men's clothes. It blurs the sexual distinctions God made for a woman to be feminine and a man masculine. in the light of this it is still an abomination for a woman to be a grave digger or palm wine tapper. It is still immoral and ungodly for people to wear unisex clothings for the same reasons. These are the reasons why lesbianism and homosexuality are very rampant today.

It is still sinful and immoral for christian female youth corpers to wear ajuwaya trousers regardless of the government policy. There is a reason Christians were persecuted in the early church for their stand against certain common practices. If you notice, exceptions are made for strong Muslims who refuse to wear some aspects of the youth corper's uniform as provided..why not do the same or Christians too?

The truth is that cross dressing trouser wearing for women is of the world. "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. -1 John 2:15

If you love the world, the love of the Father, the Holy Ghost is not in you, and that means you are not even born again even if you speak in tongues.

Hello sister....
Did you read this?

sonickay: lolz Nigeria and its interpretation of the scripture. All who supports ladies wearing modest and decent trousers are right and more enlightened.
However, the essence of that verse is to prevent transgender and transsexual dressing. That is to prevent men from wearing things designated for women or to make them look like a woman to a man. Also, on the other hand it is to prevent women or ladies from wearing clothes designated only for men where waring them will be deceitful and present them as a man.
A simple hypothesis of this verse during the medieval period is this: men and women wear garments and robes; men's robes are plain without adornments. On the other hand women's garments are stylish, colourful and more adorned. It was easier to differentiate based on adornments of garments then. So it creates confusion and deceit when a lady wear a man's robe and a man wears a lady's adorned garment. Such was the essence of the verse to stop the anomaly.
In our modern times, a tomboy will never qualify for a guy to a reasonable man, she may have a guy's stature or looks, yet her clothing will give her away easily as a lady because she wasn't dressed in a guy's body hug or overall shirts or a trouser designed for men by Versace, D&G, Bosch et al. The designer factor says it all.
Likewise it is prohibitive for a man to wear a ladies trouser, pants, shirts no matter what fundamental and exclusive right he has to wear trousers and the likes, wearing a designated wear for ladies vilates Deut, 22:5 no matter the levels of similarity and vice-versa.

@ op, mayb its beta u clearly define diz words "decency, moderacy and modesty", because very many ppl av it all wrongly defined!!!
God help us all

udopee: @ the op,as a man on trousers, when you want to urinate in an open place, you freely do that at ease without people around seeing ur body, it is not the same case with a woman wearing trousers. If accidentally she is on a far journey and along the line the vehicle stops for people to urinate, I tell you that you will see everything cus she have to pull down the trouser to her hipline before having free assess to ease herself. What else is she hiding again. It wouldn't be like that if she is wearing a well covering long skirt bcus all she need to do is to quietly bend down and off she goes. THIS IS SIMPLE REASONING TO SHOW YOU THAT NATURE DOES NOT SUPPORT WOMEN WEARING TROUSERS OR MEN WEARING SKIRT...SHALOM!

. Udoopee God blez u real gud 4 dis. Around 1992 any woman wif trouser dey call her ashewo den, bt nw it has turn to modernizatn, my own is dat God standard can never change. Through ur dis simple fact, normal person shld knw dat trouser is nt 4 lady, thank u again bro

olaseg1: @ op, mayb its beta u clearly define diz words "decency, moderacy and modesty", because very many ppl av it all wrongly defined!!!
God help us all

de·cen·cy [dss'nssee]
noun (plural de·cen·cies)
1. conformity with moral standards: behavior or an attitude that conforms to the commonly accepted standards of what is right and respectable
2. modesty: modesty or propriety


de·cen·cies, plural noun
moral behavior: the commonly accepted standards of good behavior (formal)

Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


adjective [móddərət]
1. small or slight: not large, great, or severe
a moderate portion

2. reasonable: not excessive or unreasonable
a moderate eater

3. middle-of-the-road: not extreme or radical
moderate views

4. average: neither particularly good nor particularly bad
moderate results


Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

babatgtr: . Udoopee God blez u real gud 4 dis. Around 1992 any woman wif trouser dey call her ashewo den, bt nw it has turn to modernizatn, my own is dat God standard can never change. Through ur dis simple fact, normal person shld knw dat trouser is nt 4 lady, thank u again bro

And you call that God's standard.
It sure sounds like Men's standard to me.

vickyO:
Hello sister....
Did you read this?

I tire oo, she still doesn't get it.

babatgtr: . Udoopee God blez u real gud 4 dis. Around 1992 any woman wif trouser dey call her ashewo den, bt nw it has turn to modernizatn, my own is dat God standard can never change.

Shebi in nigeria here?

haibe:

Please I appreciate this but have you read Deuteronomy 22:11?

Do you obey it? or its no more required?

That is precisely my point. Verse 11 is a Jewish law that does not apply to us.

YOu+ are Lost antichrist

SisterMe: It is still sinful and immoral for christian female youth corpers to wear ajuwaya trousers regardless of the government policy.

You know what sister? you are a legalist and this does not make you a christian 1 bit.

What do you even know that is immoral?

SisterMe:



That is precisely my point. Verse 11 is a Jewish law that does not apply to us.

I never knew when the Bible said the law has been abolished, it actually meant we could cherry pick. As in, to Choose the best one wey you like.
Come on SisterMe. Live in the freedom Christ has given.
Old wine skinbags aren't suitable for this new fresh wine.

SisterMe:



That is precisely my point. Verse 11 is a Jewish law that does not apply to us.

King James Bible
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers
sorts, as of woollen and linen together. ( Deuteronomy 22:11)

5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a
man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your
God detests anyone who does this


Please how does the first amount to a jewish law which isn't applicable to us? even though they are both about dressing?

Are you familiar with this verse?


James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet offend in one [ point ] , he is
guilty of all

haibe:

King James Bible
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers
sorts, as of woollen and linen together. ( Deuteronomy 22:11)

5 A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a
man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your
God detests anyone who does this


Please how does the first amount to a jewish law which isn't applicable to us? even though they are both about dressing?

Are you familiar with this verse?


James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole
law, and yet offend in one [ point ] , he is
guilty of all

It's like you did not read my first post well, or did not understand it.. Go back and read it again. I answered your question in that post.