₦airaland Forum

Image123: yorubas will say "o pari". We have no arguments. The bolded is what i've being trying to say with many words.

What do you think you're doing?
Make I answer for you,
Cherry picking.
smh.

haibe: it may not end but one thing is sure, some people will understand that Christians are to be led by the Holy spirit and not by the law.



18 But if you are led by the Spirit , you are not
under the law.

Even if they want to enslave themselves, the law never mentioned trousers....

Image123: Oh you mean you people were clothless all that while? Come vicky, take time, no let me give you name oh.
You get the point, the styles are changing, so do not forget the past or history.

Clothing like trousers, buttoned down shirts, hats, suits e.t.c. were men's before they started making females.
Females then wore only dresses...
Sorry I didn't elaborate my point in that post.

Our point is why pick on trousers and exempt the rest?

Glokit: D FACT ABOUT DIS ISSUE IS People interpret BIBLE †̥̥ọ̥ suit and Justify dia ACT.... God Gave standard b4 indians Began wif dia Female Trouser culture....
If u̶̲̥̅̊ wona point 2 d weather condition.....God made dem all b4 giving d STANDARD of wot 2 wia.... NOTE: e doesn't make mistakes and dia was no exception 2 d standard.....

Did God say trousers, skirts, gowns or any clothing in that verse?
No.....
What we are upholding here is decency in all ramifications.

Image123: So the logic is, let us score zero instead of 1/10? i do not get it exactly. i'm not interested in the facade and boring talk about whether trouser is a sin or going to hell. My straight focus is, was trouser known as man's wear and even still known so in some places? If yes, that makes Deut 22v5 clearer. But it seems all folks here are interested in is pointing out other places/things. Its like telling someone that stealing is wrong, but the person then talks about a thousand OTHER wrong things as an excuse to steal. Stating that if he stops stealing, he will be an hypocrite. That is how this is going.

Ok then Mr. Serious. Males started wearing it before us. As a matter of fact they started wearing most of the clothing before us.

SisterMe: You are coming back to my point-that deut 22:5 is valid and concerns us today. Now no matter the play on semantics of purpose or intent, the crime is committed when you cross dress wether you intended to deceive or not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse..you can ask lastma .

Now the worlds standards for acceptable male and female dressing is always changing. Where do we draw the line? Versace and Hugo boss etc constantly introduce unimaginably immoral styles and pass them of as male and female garments. Should that be the standard of the Christian? If it was a sin in 1920 when the yuppie revolution of women's liberation movements started simultaneously with wearing men's clothes, doing men's jobs, rebelling against God's scriptural order that the man be head of the woman in the home, it remains a sin today because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever Heb 13:8. The moral decadence that followed this development in the 1920s easily tells wether this idea was from heaven or from hell.

Why don't you start wearing the gowns worn in the days of Jesus or in the 1800's
Which one is men job and female job again?
So if I do your so called men's job I'll go to hell.

texanomaly: You want flowers? Where you deny? Na I go send am. What kin flower?

Correct girl...


@fdconsult, send me your address too and state the kind flower you like, e.g. Rose, prim rose, lily, anyone. I go DHL am to you.

You've got two offers now, accept them and make it a contract..

Nnamdikko: Decent skirts doesn't look attractive. Sometimes u can barely notice the person wearing it. But no matter how decent a trouser is, it has it's way of attracting the eyes.

Don't be wiser than your God!

Na lie!!!!
I've seen guys drooling over deeper life girls sef...

Glokit: I love ladies wif trousers ...but Pls can u̶̲̥̅̊ give a spiritual backing 2 ladies put it on cos u̶̲̥̅̊ sounded as if u̶̲̥̅̊'v gotten 1

No scriptural backing.
But the Scripture prescribed modesty and "moderacy" in all.

aujile: they err because they know not the scripture

Word!

texanomaly: Just for you Obadiah
I'll even chase it with this cause you are actually kinda sweet.


@topic
If flowers are what you want, you go girl.
Tell your guy. Maybe it doesn't occur to him.

I often wonder why woman think men read their minds. It goes both ways. We don't read minds either. Geez people. Open your mouth and talk to each other. I mean IRL, not here in lala land.

And fun

obadiah777: vicky when are you going to buy me flawas

After you've sent my one bag of flour to me.

aujile: try and finish reading that chapter of scripture for yourself. The cloth you wear today are you sure it is 100% cotton or wool or silk or polyester? How many people today practise mono cropping?

No mind them...
Hypocrites is what Christ calls them.

Nnamdikko: Believe me, no matter how decent a trouser may look, it still has it's way of attracting men.
Don't be deceived!
Make no mistake!

And skirts don't.
smh for you

Probably those big, floor sweeping, shapeless skirts....

Image123: You've said a lot of nonsense that i did not say or intend to say. Good though to see that the bold agrees with what i am saying. i have given you a dictionary and links that CLEARLY state that a blouse is a shirt. i'm not here to make a law for you or anybody, neither do i have to start making defences on false accusations of what i did not say or teach. Good bye and enjoy the traffic.

By saying shirt we mean button down shirt.....
Men started wearing it first before we follow join.

obadiah777: we aint trolling. we too, we like flawas

obadiah777: yes now vicky. we full ground for here hehe.

I dey feel your stlye. thumbs up.

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.

texanomaly: We did not deserve the bolded. Be honest here Vicky.

Yes, I guess.
10 pages, we break record sef...

texanomaly: A bag of flour is much more useful.
I love to bake.

obadiah777: imagine all the beautiful cakes and pies and pizza you can make with a bag of flour ? more edifying than a bouquet of flowers aint it lmao. and they both sound the same

Una don reach here...

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.

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.

idnoble135: ^ ^ ^
You too?

YEah... unfortunately

idnoble135: You were banned?

We derailed the thread complaint section... we turned it to the Religion section chatbox.

I wish HBG showed a little mercy..

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Some Christians need serious brain deworming....

[quote author=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![/quote]Beautiful.
You're blessed.

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.