₦airaland Forum

Have you asked yourself " What was the dressing of the people to whom God was handing the law?" They were all wearing gown - male and female, all.

I wouldn't say that if I were you. There had always been a distinction of dresses no matter how similar looking. You may want to write down. Men wore breeches and women wore skirts. These are not associated to the opposite gender even in scriptures, pls do check it up. After it's all said and done, your leviticine excuse for deuteronomy doesn't hold. It was an abomination to God, not a question of menses. I'll tell you why. Wearing cloth pertaining to opposite sex was an heathen practice. The heathen did it usually when they had their festivals. You should read up on that. House, Has anyone read on cross-dressing yet? What a sigh.
Blimey! You may not need to read to far. Such practices are still done today. One would imagine that the Indian clothes are so similar, would deut 22v5 apply. Check out what devil is making them do at the Kottankulangara Sridevi temple festival. It's Kottankulangara, you don't want to bite your tongue here.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=474426.msg6396279#msg6396279 date=1279287416]Image,

did you read the word 'lingeries' as used in my post?[/quote]Yes i did. You sort of linked french women wearing lingeries to the advent of male underwears, and said if I wear underwear. Then i said underwear had been before that time so cannot be considered as belonging to french women. Let me try to reply precaps small, my thumbs don start to ache.

You reply to the pics posted above is only one of rhetoric and not of substance. A person dressing in the manner of pix1 most likely would not pose like the person in pix2 [b].

. There goes substance written all over.

But the question is not about pose but about how sinful is the dressing in pix1.Talking about [b]virtue, the only thing I remember about it is that it's easily turned to vice especially the virtue of patience.

Not at all impressive for one who reads the whole scriptures twice a year.

As for reading Leviticus, may I say with all humility and truthfulness that I read the entire Bible every six months and that means I do it twice a year, not adding other minor readings in church and for personal lessons on scriptural exposition. It's no big deal to ask you to read Leviticus my bro. Holla!

Good to see that you'll lift the burden with me. I'm about to start then, God help me.

You made gowns to appear to be marks of holiness with your 'Holy sister long gown' talk.

^
Did you note that i said that underwears did not start with slave traders or french women? Those were not the origin as it was already in use before them, that's why I alluded to those scripture where garments were removed and yet the people couldn't be imagined as completely naked. They sure wore something under their garment, under!

I laugh when people say trousers were not for females, maybe someone should. . . , and to my Bro. Image, pls if you want to wear bra

Stop the laugh, maybe you should read up on cross dressing to observe that trousers have always 'pertained' to males, and that it was unusual in any part of the world, just some decades ago, for a female to wear trouser. And no thanks about the bra, it'll add to my laundry which i'm hoping to reduce. Apparent question still is, do we get to heaven for wearing skirt or trouser? Same question could be asked for prayer, fasting, going to church, singing hymns/chorus, do we get to heaven for giving offering, or giving alms? It's obvious that these are not our qualifications for Heaven, but we do, and should do them. It's grace that saves us but we should learn to keep God's commandments.

^
No, i think i have issues both with the poses and the cloth. Long gown is not a mark of holiness, it's supposed to be normal clothing. But seeing the horrible society we dwell in, anyone who puts on something long must be feigning holiness, no. Even people of other religions dress in DECENT long gowns.

Again, its a historical fact that females in france originated the wear called 'lingerie' which is designed to be worn under to protect their b.reast as well as buttocks from excessive exposure to heat.colonials saw the need to start putting on these underwears which THEY BORROWED FROM THE FEMALES and called it pantaloons and singlets. And with all due respect tell me you dont wear pants and singlets today

Colonialists weren't the first to put on underwear for seun's sake. Every decent human puts on underwear/undergarment. Some people spread their garments for Jesus to ride on, Jesus put aside his garment to wash the disciples' feet. Jesus' vesture was parted while on the cross. I hope you'll agree that all these without garments were not completely NAKED. Point being that underwear ideas did not start with slave traders or french women.
I'll rather say gay and homosexual activity has been on increase because of poor distinction of sexes in clothing, not sexy underwear design.

That's more a question of a seductive pose than a seductive trouser. If the woman in pix 1 stands that way, one may argue for seduction, yes. Oh wait till she puts on a shorter blouse and sit in danfo going to Yaba, hahahaha. Precap cool down, i dey come your side. Patience is a virtue, and btw when last did you read the whole best seller Leviticus book. Don't put a grievous burden on me if you wouldn't move it with moi

the same britons saw the need for females who started going to schools with males to start putting on shirts (short sleeves, long sleeve and T-shirts), and with time it became known as blouses for females, meaning females wore male shirts and later 'fashinonized' it to be blouses

This one up na foul. You can't credit the history of blouses to this. Maybe you should do some more research, the britons are not the only people in the world. Females have always been associated with skirts, even before Christ. They had gowns or blouses worn over the skirts. You may argue that the blouses were not fashionable as compared to flowing gowns, but to say they started wearing blouse for school. . . , that one na foul. Warning. Be careful.

Tonye t
Pls, slow down. I'm currently on my phone. I just saw your last post. I'll try to respond duly. Thanks

Tonye-t

Form doesnt matter but the decency and modesty in which you put on that form is what matters" like 1Timothy 2:9 puts it

Oh you can't seperate form from decency and modesty. There's no way what is called feminine trousers can be referred to as modest. Modest clothing DOESN'T attract sexual interest, you can check up from a dictionary i.e the old fashioned meaning. Modesty goes along WITH shamefacedness and sobriety in 1Timothy 2v9. Being shy or embarassed are not 'trouser qualities'. Trousers are bold if you understand what i mean psychologically.

Do you agree that average of the clothes you and I put on were all descents from the colonials (i.e. the Britons) meaning whether you like it or not. . .

Would you rather that we moved around naked or in skimpy animal skins?

Now do you realize that even in that time, they still had alot of females who had their gowns sown to be seductive

I'm against all forms of immodest dressing, not just one form. Abuse and misuse can be two different wrongs.

^^Is this virus or what?

We must continue to pray alexeo. It's evident even from this thread that unbelievers love women on trousers and will even have them naked. That's the trend we should go against. It's not difficult to note the dearth of female contributors on this thread. Majority are just used to being dull of hearing they decided to turn deaf ears. I'm not hoping for surprises on judgement day. I'm wishing we could all get our crowns like we expect, without being turned down. We'll continue in prayer.

Just said nothing? And you quoted nothing? And read nothing? Amazing!

Yes they need to be replaced, but by who? These are proven talents who can mess up world class defenders on a good day. Nigeria did not even have a 'midfield' at the world cup. Any new player can seem to play his heart out, just to get into the SE team and probably secure a better club for himself. Then they'll start ignoring national call ups. No be today. Unlike Yak or Martins who have shown raw and consistent performances at top clubs.

I don't boast of intellect or works or wisdom or anything. True, we're saved by grace through faith, but let's be wise to NOTE that God HAS dealt to EVERY MAN the measure of faith(Romans 12). It's up to each man to make use of this faith and not bury it somewhere, calling God austere and saying 'He'll save me if He'll save me'. And to NOTE that the grace of God that brings salvation HAS appeared to ALL men (Titus 2). Gone should be the days when devil hid these truths from us. If any man thirsts, let him COME. God with us.

I'll rather tell you about Christ and His purpose, you want to hear that one too?

we have the one of people wearing things which indecently expose their bodies or dress in sexually appealing way, this one is not yet accepted as trouser is accepted in churches today but its also spreading like wild fire. Young mothers are dressing their kid girls in this way and call it civilization. This children grow up with this style of dressing, their minds are equally growing to accept this as normal
way of dressing. In some years to come when all this generation of kids will mature, some of them will become pastors wife and so on, then their pastor husbands will also look for how they will interpret the bible to suit the indecent wears their wives are wearing.

This terrible dressing is already accepted my brother. Have you not heard that God looks ONLY at the heart? Or that we're in the time of gracelessness ? Or that we're not guided by laws but by our free minds? It's everywhere. The end time of the injury time of the last time is here. Watch.

Continue to wonder. At least your wonder bag may become full, then it's wonderful. Hell fire beckons.

vedaxcool:
No every child is born good it is the society that corrupt children. And one more thing for the xtains that claim people are born with sin how come after Jesus "died" for your sins your kids are still being born sinners all the generations after him are still being born sinners, I just don't get it . a more better way to see it may be as you guys claims : Adam sins people of the world begins to inherit sin then Jesus "died" for the sins hence they inheritable sins are canceled and yet people still inherit sins; it seems we have been conned.

The bolded is the wisest part of this post. You seem to know little about children or about Christ and His purpose.

Regurgitation is supposed to be peculiar to ruminants, why does this keep coming up? What bites you so with 10% when you lay claims to giving 100%, hypocrites.

Okija
You're not a believer haven known you on nl, but i'll ask you a question. We all know that there was a time when women didn't wear trousers(just a couple of years ago). Now, did they die during the cold in canada, or did they not go to church? Stop making flimsy excuses in hia. I dey for hia for now.

Uche
What makes deuteronomy 22v5 different is that it is abomination UNTO the Lord. Also, it's a natural paragraph on its own. Also, there's no change of it in the NT as you may observe in some.

The Word of God is meant to turn us from gentile vanities and renew our minds from love of the world. We are not of the world. Why should we be concerned about silly trousers and silly skirts and not be concerned about trousers and skirts?

10 and so the Jews said to the man who had been healed, "It is the Sabbath; the law forbids you to carry your mat."

Did the law truly forbid him to carry his mat? Truth is that we need to know the difference between ceremonial laws and moral laws, and the REASONS for the change /'upgrade' of the law.
God does not change. It's wrong to state that there're somethings He highly esteemed in OT that He lost interest in in NT. So you feel God just began to consider/take interest in Love in NT? Tonye, you're joking right?

Therefore do not let anyone judge you

There comes where we often miss it. Deuteronomy 22v5 is not anyone. It is the Word of God! Rightly divide, the Word of God is pure and inspired. God is not a man. He's Judge, not man who we may 'dispermit' from judging us.
Ephesians 4v13

you should rather be concerned with is the issue of DECENCY AND MODESTY as regards to dressing and not the form of the dress

Can there truly be decency and modesty without form? How decent can a man look, for example with bra. What pertains to another cannot be decent/modest.

It's tough considering that this is not popular opinion at present, but I don't think Yakubu can/should be dumped as yet. He has no replacement. His goal sense is uncommon and unquestionable. There's no competition/tournament he goes for that he doesn't manage to score. It's just so easy for him to score, you don't dump those kind of players. His miss against s.korea was ridiculous but it happens. He's accused of non-commitment in the SE but who's not. Even Okocha, Kanu, Oliseh have been so accused. Same goes for Obi.

Life is not a joke. Little wonder Jesus Himself said "Strive to enter, many will not be able". Heaven is a special place, sin cannot enter there, not to mention sinner. We're NOT all sinners.
One of the criteria for dwelling with God is in our Today's passage. It concerns people around us, whether on nl, on the internet, in the office, at home, in the church, on the road. Those ARE our neighbours. Anything that is not good, don't do it to your neighbour. Don't take up a fight with anybody. Drop the fight, dump the tension. Don't allow slander, abuse, backbiting, evil speaking. Pray against it, repent of it. Heaven is a beautiful place, you don't want to miss it because of what you do/did to someone else.
Just like David, search yourself today, examine yourself, are you in line? Are you qualified? What's your C.V like? Update it with these requirements. God help you.

July 15 Psalm 15v3

3. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.

Psalm 15 is a psalm of David. Recall David? A man after God's heart, the chosen one. Of all his qualified brothers, in the whole of Israel, God chose David. From his youth, prophet Samuel knew David as a man after God's heart.
David conquered Goliath, he had the spirit of God. He's so careful not to touch the Lord's anointed. If anyone was to be sure of a place with God, David ought to be. I mean, he was king of Israel. But David wasn't as frivolous as many christians today. He was not like 'oh God is good, God is of tender mercies and loving kindness, can such a God not allow you to live with Him?' You know, most of the sweet attributes we call God today, we learnt them from David. David knew God, yet he wasn't presumptuous. He had to be sure. This is a matter of eternity.

You don't need an explanation of the trinity, it will do you little good. All you need is salvation. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts and let him RETURN unto God. He will have mercy on him and ABUNDANTLY pardon. What a promise to lay hold on, instead of seeming contradictions that you spend much energy grasping.

^Joagbaje
You don't know what i mean by cross-dressing? You're on the internet. Find out. Wikipedia it, google it. You may notice how recently trousers began to be CONSIDERED for females.

Joagbaje
Did you mind to read on cross-dressing like i adviced, i guess not.
AnywayS, like i earlier said, you need to learn to rightly divide the Word of truth and not just lump it all, that leads to confusion. I asked, do you believe in deuteronomy 28v1. Do you obey deuteronomy 5v18-20. Oh, if you do, may i say you must keep the whole law. You need to differentiate what is known as 'ceremonial' and 'moral'.
To aid you, if you'll notice from the original, deut 22v5 is a paragraph on it's own. Check your Bible and you'll see the paragraph sign in front (the sign is not in all bibles, you may need to check a couple, or if you have access check the original). A paragraph contains a distinct idea from others.
Also, you may note that deuteronomy 22v5 specifically refers to abomination to the Lord . We're 'treading on holy ground' here. Go and study. Thank God you're not here with a 'jesus wore skirt' this time.