I've being priviledged to hear solid arguements both for and against females wearing trousers.both in and outside nairaland.Both I wonder, what happens if it is truly abominable in the sight of God.What do we risk?

na wa o i dont understand why this women keep arguing over something not made 4 them.biologically,trouser wasnt made 4 women.is this not enough evidence.

na wa o i don't understand why this women keep arguing over something not made 4 them.biologically,trouser wasnt made 4 women.is this not enough evidence.

@ HNS, Who told you that trousers were not meant 4 women? Biology/Biologically told u?
How can you buttress this thing u just said?

Why all these noise about women wearing trousers? Cant we find something new to teach our morals. Who said dat trousers are for men alone. Then gowns should be for women alone, huh, ? Why do men wear caftans or why do priests wear sutan or wot do dey call it? May be that is mens kind of gowns? In d same way we have women kind of trousers. So wot is wrong in that.Ok lets say dat it is wrong for women to wear trousers. It implies that those wearing it at night to avoid mosquito bites, those dat wear them to their farms to protect their skins, those women Engineers wearing them due to their nature of job are also guilty. This is because if womem wearing trousers is bad it cant be right under certain conditions.

Wot i belive dat Bible tells is that we should dress for Three Reasons,
(1) To Glorify God
(2) To beautify and
(3) To Protect/Cover ur body.

Any dress that fall outside these is a wrong dress. So women wear trousers so long as they are descent.

So, whats the risk.Just in case it is wrong?

I can't believe people reason like this,kai what kind of world are they living in.Why should what a woman wear be a problem,even if she wears thong in the public,that is what she wants.

Have you ever thought of nudists,naturalists going shopping naked,even in the club.The body is just mere dust and ashes,there is nothing sacred about it apart from the fun you have it.

God has left us,we are in a digital world.

redsun:

I can't believe people reason like this,kai what kind of world are they living in.Why should what a woman wear be a problem,

i was 100% behind you until i saw this:

redsun:

even if she wears thong in the public,that is what she wants.

so you'll let your wife wear a thong out in the public area? even if she wants to? you no get shame for her even if she does not have any sense of decency?

redsun:

Have you ever thought of nudists,naturalists going shopping naked,even in the club.The body is just mere dust and ashes,there is nothing sacred about it apart from the fun you have it.

sure, the body is just a mere dude. . . but hon, we're in the new millennium. . .go apply for a job wearing thong and see if you get the Job. Go to a bar club naked and see what happens. . .think about this.

If my wife chose to wear thong in the public, ok,as long she can handle it and we have an understanding.I can marry a prostitute,but we have to have understanding that she is a prostitute,then i know what i am setting out for,not the one that pretends and at the same time,an opio,even the so-called born again ones.

Secondly you can be in a position where you don't have to look for a job that requires dress code,you detect what you wear and what you do,that is the state of complete independence that every man should have but for limited imaginations.You make the rules.

It is not what goes into a man that defiles a man,but what comes out of it,that includes dressing and general being.

redsun:

I can't believe people reason like this,kai what kind of world are they living in.Why should what a woman wear be a problem,even if she wears thong in the public,that is what she wants.

Have you ever thought of nudists,naturalists going shopping naked,even in the club.The body is just mere dust and ashes,there is nothing sacred about it apart from the fun you have it.

God has left us,we are in a digital world.

Sorry,I'm not a free thinker.I'm a christian & I'm asking what the risk is before God.Wat do we stand to lose just in case,assuming it was truly wrong in God's view for females to wear trousers

You don't lose nothing,nobody is judging you but yourself,just be fair to others like you want them to be you.Live life in full,when you die you become organic material and nourish the earth that you are,that is as far as you can go.

All this hell and heaven story is the key to people's enslavement to white and arabic religion,that is how they got you.They keep you in constant fear so that you don't let go and use your common sense to see that clothes is just clothes,it is even better because it completely covers the woman body to avoid lookery,for those who think it is a sin to see a naked beautiful woman,what sight could be better?I bet somebody like olabowale will rather like to see them stoned.psychopatic terrorist.

If my wife chose to wear thong in the public, ok,as long she can handle it and we have an understanding.I can marry a prostitute,but we have to have understanding that she is a prostitute,then i know what i am setting out for,not the one that pretends and at the same time,an opio,even the so-called born again ones.

Secondly you can be in a position where you don't have to look for a job that requires dress code,you detect what you wear and what you do,that is the state of complete independence that every man should have but for limited imaginations.You make the rules.

It is not what goes into a man that defiles a man,but what comes out of it,that includes dressing and general being.




redsun, this our argument get k-leg.

it is better said than done. u need to be more descent in your response.

The fact is that possibilities are far cries to alot of people,they just can't bring themselves up to think or see otherwise.

Limited horizon is a self made and self cured disease,nobody but you can free yourself from the entanglement of irrelevants and wants.

Wearing trousers to me is not a crime to God. But, i believe people will want to remind me of Deut. 20:5. As true Christians that is those with the spirit of God in them, they would know that we cannot be righteous by practicing the law but by the grace of God through faith in the Lord Jesus. But, wearing it is based on your motive. Having in mind that, the scriptures says whatever you would do that will make your brethren sin, don't do it.

I'm not exactly asking if females wearing trousers is wrong or right.As I said,there are great logical arguements on both sides.My question is,what if it is actually wrong for females to wear trousers,what are the consequences.and danilola,the text is 22v5 not 20v5

You risk nothing cos you wouldn't need to wear cloth after checking out of your body.

Have you tried tracing the origin of trousers?

Please worry less about unimportant things.

That would be funny, if god can send a female to hell because she wears trousers. Apparently he doesn't have more important things to worry about.

Till HIS kingdom comes i will always cast my vote for women wearing trousers
against those puting on micro/mini skirt. As for the risk - There is none at all

The truth is that the answer is both right and wrong for the following reasons:

1. Female Trousers is right if it is worn as a comfortable and secure means to prevent females from exposing themselves in public.

2. Female Trousers is right if it is worn in a way that dose not lead to sexual seduction of men.

However

1. Female Trousers is wrong if it is worn in a way to sexually seduce men (e.g. tight trousers that completely show the curves and body shapes of the woman in the presence of men)

Witness:

The truth is that the answer is both right and wrong for the following reasons:
1. Female Trousers is right if it is worn as a comfortable and secure means to prevent females from exposing themselves in public.
2. Female Trousers is right if it is worn in a way that dose not lead to sexual seduction of men.
However
1. Female Trousers is wrong if it is worn in a way to sexually seduce men (e.g. tight trousers that completely show the curves and body shapes of the woman in the presence of men)

Nonsence, what a nonscence! if a woman should wear cover all on the street/road; those men must still be seducing themselves. like I've said before "men always look for an excuse to commit/ or for what they've committed. just like the case of Adam & Eve.

By the way Sysuser witness what do you mean, body curves and shapes - are you saying women should be wearing BONGOS instead of fitted clothes

By the way Sysuser witness what do you mean, body curves and shapes - are you saying women should be wearing BONGOS instead of fitted clothes

The bible clearly says the Christians should not do things the would lead other christians into sin,

So now tell me how it is possible for a woman to wear body hogg trousers or skirts (notice becasuse both body hogg trousers and skirts are not suitable), without consciously knowing that she is intentionally "displaying" or "advertising" her body curves and shapes for the world to see (the world which includes temptable men of which some are Christians of fragile faith)

So since its not possible for a woman to prove that her dress sense would not lead to the temptation of christian men, hence it is advisable the woman should at least try and dress with all modesty so that they finally wear loose fitting (not tight fitting) trousers or skirts or blouses (I am not asking them to loose all fashion sense by wearing XXL).

Unless of course it doesn't matter whether or not they consider the faith of their fellow christian brothers to be of upmost importance

Simple,

Re: Qu'ran:the Only Religious Book That Connotes With Science and History
« #30 on: Today at 12:44:51 PM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: mukina2 on Today at 12:25:21 PM
Madam,

the Topic says Qu'ran:the Only Religious Book That Connotes With Science and History. and so far since yesterday . i had to be deleting offtopic post. keep to the topic at hand
my gender has NOTHING to do with this .


Ok. I want to believe you. but one thing you should know is that, this is known as a FORUM, every one whether enlighten or not will/must say what he feels like i.e his/her opinion. No statement does not make sence. We are humans from diverse culture,norms and beliefs. You cannot twist one's hand to accept or move in the same angle or direction your moving.

So when people are talking in a class for instance, they must not be discussing the topic their teacher just taught them, but they might continued with it. So if they keep discussing on the same topic, it will be boring.

Understand that you cannot shut up people's mouth or push them like a robot to talk like you, act like you, be quiet like you, be holy like you, I mean it cannot work. Ok take for instance "SYSUSER HATES CATHOLIC WITH ALL HIS STRENGTH" You deleted it. That does not mean we/I is fighting with Him " He was able to admit that and He told us his reasons.

I mean try to be tolerance with us, we know that there is someone out there who can ban, or delete post - But not at all thimes and not as it pleases you.

Thank you ma,

Witness:

The bible clearly says the Christians should not do things the would lead other christians into sin,
So since its not possible for a woman to prove that her dress sense would not lead to the temptation of christian men, hence it is advisable the woman should at least try and dress with all modesty so that they finally wear loose fitting (not tight fitting) trousers or skirts or blouses (I am not asking them to loose all fashion sense by wearing XXL).

Unless of course it doesn't matter whether or not they consider the faith of their fellow christian brothers to be of upmost importance

Simple,

Does that bothers you “ I mean tight clothes" Oh your afraid of loosing your faith

This is a matter of One's interpretation of the Holy Book, be it the Bible, Quran or anyother religious book that gives any information on this topic.

Just like the case of Women covering their head in church or not, this is based on the one's interpretation and that of ones denomination.

With reference to the Bible, if I recall currently, what is considered a sin is when a man/woman wears something specifical designed for a woman/man. That said, I think women wearing a trousers specifically designed for females is right, but wearing a jean, trouser designed for a man will be wrong. You can't say the Scottish men are wrong for wearing Skirt because the skirt they wear is designed for the male Gender.

Once again it balls down to one's opinion, some say don't wear it , just to be on the safe side. Other say wear it while bearing in mind the exceptions.

earlier post - currently < correctly>

also the Bible verse I am referencing is Deuteronomy  chapter 22, verse 5

I found this on a website, I feel it's quite detailed and really helpful

Hello Evelyn;

The NIV reads: "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."

The Amplified Bible says: "The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garments; for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God."

The NKJV and the old KJV agree with the Amplified.

My "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary, " speaks of several words English would translate as to "put on clothes." God "clothed" Adam & Eve with animals skins, for example. The word can refer to ordinary putting on of clothes, but is also used in a figurative sense when the book of Job says, "My flesh is clothed in worms, " The same word is used to describe God clothed in "honor and majesty" in the Psalms. It's also used in abstract ways such as to be "clothed in shame." Gideon is described as possessed by God's Spirit, "The Spirit of the Lord clothed Himself with Gideon," Judges 6:34.

The word used to denote "man" in the Deuteronomy 22:5 passage is the word "geber" and is a synonym for "is." The word "is" or "geber" refers to man as the counterpart of woman, different because of his maleness. "Is" is defined as "man, husband; mate; human being; human; somebody; each; every,” to my understanding, all meaning male, that is, male human beings or male somebodies etc.

The noun is often used in marriage contexts to indicate “husband” or “mate”--the maleness of "is" is emphasized more than any other usage of the word. Sometimes "is" is used to describe strong, influential, knowledgeable and powerful men. It's also used when men are described as fathers.

"Issah" is used to indicate "woman; wife; betrothed one; bride; each." The noun indicates a female regardless of age or virginity and indicates femaleness as different from maleness. Issah also refers to "mother." It is used to insult opponents, describing them as issah, women.

In the KJV Deuteronomy 22:5 reads, "The issah (woman) shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a geber (man), neither shall a geber (man) put on a issah's (woman's) garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

Given this evidence it is my opinion that what God finds detestable is the putting on of clothing belonging to the opposite sex in order to submerge one's gender and take on another; to become a transvestite. This verse is not condemning men who dress as women as a lark in a play or women who wear pants for riding horses etc., persons who are doing these things are not submerging their true genders, they are still male and female. It's the act of becoming a transvestite that God hates.

The New Testament says God finds the sin of homosexuality detestable; it stands to reason He's not changed His mind about transvestite behaviors. One must be careful, however, not to fall into the trap of legalism or attempting to obey the Old Covenant. Under the Old Covenant, for example, no more blends in fabric, but only pure cotton or pure rayon, etc, No more shrimp or catfish. And the commands for sacrifices, which after Solomon, must be done at the temple in Jerusalem, cannot be kept at all. Jesus paid the price of the Old Covenant and fulfilled it—-it's over.

Fixating on strict adherence to law leads to legalism. Also to blindness toward one's own failings and/or a huge load of guilt. Legalism and love are not compatible, for Love bears all things, while legalism will bear nothing but perfection.

Jesus' disciples gleaned on the Sabbath, an unacceptable practice under the Old Covenant. Jesus answered the accusations of the Pharisees by pointing out how the greater purpose of the law, love, honoring parents etc., had been usurped in favor of meticulous, petty obedience of the letter of the law in their own lives. Jesus taught Love, to love God and our neighbors, and by doing those we would fulfill the Law.

Jesus came to fulfill the law and pay for its demands so that believers in Him might be free of the death it brings and be redeemed from the curse. Be careful in your studies you do not fall prey to the allure of legalism.

May God bless you richly,

Marilyn

Does that bothers you “ I mean tight clothes" Oh your afraid of loosing your faith

1. Yes it bothers me, and it ought to bother any one who calls him/herself a True Christians, simply because the bible clearly states that we should not do things for selfish reasons but rather that we should do it in a way that it would not result in the loss of faith of our fellow brethren:


1Co 8:10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;
1Co 8:11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?
1Co 8:12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.
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.



2. The Bible says that one shuold flee all that has an appearance of evil, the purpose of "women wearing" body hugging clothes has not other function than to attract attention to themselves and in some cases an act of active seduction. Believe me women wearing body hogging clothes that completely take the shape of their body , are basicall doing something which has the appearance of evil, (even if they don't mean to).

1Th 5:22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.


3. Does it not bother you that it is un-Christ-like for a Christian to contribute to the fall of another christian.

Please note:

a. I am not saying trousers are bad , no they are not (they are either good and bad depending on circumstances and type) , what is bad is how they are worn and for what purpose they are worn.

b. I am not saying skirts are bad , no they are not (they are either good and bad depending on circumstances and type) , what is bad is how they are worn and for what purpose they are worn.

c. I am not saying blouses are bad , no they are not (they are either good and bad depending on circumstances and type) , what is bad is how they are worn and for what purpose they are worn.

So you see trousers, skirts and blouses themselves are not wrong or sinful, rather it is when those, how those and which of those trousers, skirts and blouses are worn by women in relation to exposure of their body shapes and curves in public that determines whether or not it is wrong or sinful, simply because it boils down to how it contributes to the seduction and temptation of fellow Christians is the issue.

If women want to wear particular clothes to please their husbands fine by me , I don't have any problem with that, as wives have responsibility to their husband just have husbands have responsibility to their wives, however they should at least try and restrict it to with their home and not extend it to the public where they run the risk of causing another woman's husband (of fragile faith) to lust after them. Moreover are they Christians because they want to fufil the lusts of the flesh or are they Christians because they want to please God and love their neighbour (fellow Christians included) as themselves,

thanks for the replies.Our concern for the way we live our lives should not annoy anyone,no matter is too little/trivial.
Pro 4:26 Ponder the path of thy feet, and let all thy ways be established. and no sin is too little in the eyes of God.I don't believe that anything the Bible talks about is unimportant even if it is a line or a whole book.I didn't come saying right or wrong,I asked,wat if they are wrong?Also,I didn't ask if it is right for females to wear male trousers,I asked about female trousers itself

Have you also traced the origin of trousers oloreoko becos I have.And the inec man,I don't think your votes count in this matter,the majority is not always right,it is very often wrong.The Bible was written by one Spirit,one Lord,One God.It may sometimes have different applications but not different intepretations.It doesn't 'depend on your own intepretation' but the Holy Ghost's intepretation.And we shoul not lose focus of what the sciptures say by rationalising it.Don't just come and tell us "what God is tryin to say in this verse is love your neighbour.although the verse says do not steal,note that the thief is poor and he did not shoot the victim,he just collected his moni".Such analogy does not erase the point of the verse lasiefaire

In answer to your question of what if they are wrong, let me say first of all state the following :

1. Do you mean that what if they are wrong that women can wear female trousers.

2. Or Do you mean that what if they are wrong that female trousers should exist at all.

In either case , it would only affect their faith depending on whether they took the decision of female trousers with an open heart or with a seductive mind.

If they were wrong out of ignorance then they are still justified and absolved of wrong doing.

However if they are wrong based on thei seductive intent for the trousers, it means they are guilty of a sin.