YOUR Church has put a DRESS CODE in place!

[Running Gator]

8 minutes ago, Butero said:

That is absolutely wrong.  You said society dictates men's clothing from women's clothing.  I can go into the department store and see society doing just that.  If that is true, your wife is wrong to wear your shirt.  If this is not dictated by society, and I am right, that some clothing items are feminine and some are masculine, then she may not be doing anything wrong.  A shirt is just a shirt.  On the other hand, a dress pertains to women and pants pertain to men.  Pick your side and we can go from there, but you can't have it both ways. 

Yes, society dictates what pertains to whom.  How something is marketed does not, where something is placed in a store does not.   Things are marketed to make money, so they target who they think will use the item most, not who is supposed to use that item.  The point of marketing is to make money, not dictate who can use what.   The same logic holds for where things are sold in a store, they are positioned for greatest convenience to encourage the greatest sales.   Society as a whole on the other hand determines what is "for a man" and "what is for a woman" which is why Lavalva are for men and women and kilts are for men, despite what you may think.  The disciples wore tunics, which is basically a dress, but at the time that was ok for men, but by your standards they were all an abomination to God.

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, Butero said:

A robe and a tunic is not a dress.  I will never go along with that argument.  If you go to the store and ask for a robe, they will never mistake that for a dress. 

 

If I go to the store and ask for a tunic, I will be shown to the dress rack. 

Quote

In case you haven't been reading through this thread, one of the big arguments in favor of women wearing jeans is that they are made for a woman.  You are saying who they are made for doesn't matter  That bolsters my argument that society doesn't dictate anything, and it is all about masculine verses feminine.  We are going around in circles, and this is an argument you cannot win with your current strategy. 

What other people are arguing has no bearing on me, you cannot use the arguments of other people against me.   Below is what a society has dictated is for men.  Based upon your Americanized Christianity, they are abominations to God.  But you are wrong. 

 

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, Butero said:

To Out of the Shadows.  Here is something you might find interesting, given that you are such a world traveler and more up on fashions than me.  I found a story by accident that it was illegal for women to wear pants in Paris, France until 2013.  This is a direct quote from the story.

It sounds odd, but apparently a by-law requiring women to ask permission from city authorities before dressing as "men" and donning trousers has been on the books for more than 200 years.

I also saw that it is still illegal for women to wear pants in Tucson, Arizona.  I didn't editorialize that comment.  The quote said it was dressing like men. 

 

I do find that interesting, as is proves my point.  200 years ago society said that pants were for men.  200 year later they no longer feel that way so the law is not enforced.   You assume the first view is more valid than the latter one, but there is nothing to base this upon but again your own upbringing.   If you were living in the heart of Africa and read the bible for the first time, you would never go "yep, that is talking about pants"

[Running Gator]

2 minutes ago, Butero said:

By the way Out of the Shadows, I am serious about debating this in the Soap Box with you.  You didn't give me the last word, so you must want to keep arguing, and this thread is getting very long and off topic.  Just let me know and I will get back with you as soon as I can.  I will get with the mods to have the debate set up.  I have wanted to have this debate with someone serious about defending women in pants for years, where it will remain on record where visitors will see it in plain sight.  Just let me know. 

I don't know what else you could possibly have to add.   There is no more biblical support, the verses are out there for everyone to see.  The rest will just be two people expressing their opinion on what is "meant for a woman" and what is "meant for a man".   But if you like ,I am game.

[appy]

Butero

It seems to me, all that you really care about on the topic of clothing is winning the debate.  No matter who says what , you have to have the last word in. 

[LadyKay]

5 hours ago, Butero said:

Do you agree with me that women should not wear pants that were manufactured and sold as men's garments, and men shouldn't wear clothes that were manufactured and sold as women's garments?  Can we find common ground there? 

Well not really. I understand the meaning of  Deuteronomy 22:5 differently then you. Where as you believe the meaning of Deuteronomy 22:5 to mean simply, men are to wear men clothing and women women's clothes end of story. Where I read Deuteronomy 22:5  to mean that one should not dress as the other sex  in order to deceive others. Am  I 100% right in my understanding of Deuteronomy 22:5? Maybe, maybe not. But I think this is where God's grace comes in. As each of us should do what is right to the the best of our understanding.

[LadyKay]

4 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

I never said that. What I'm saying is we easily conform to the worlds dress mandates but become defensive when the church applies them. Why?

Because the church should not look at people the way the world looks at them. The most dirtiest, ugliest, unmatched clothes human  could have a more beautiful heart in the sight of God then the best dress, hair all neat and clean human who has no room in their heart of Jesus. Other wise the  church is just the same as any other ritzy place. Rejecting people based on their looks. That is why.

[LadyKay]

4 hours ago, Butero said:

I believe that I would oppose men wearing a flowery skirt even if I grew up in Samoa, once I saw what the Bible had to say. 

But in Samoa a flowery skirt maybe for a man. Maybe if a women is Samoa wore a flowery skirt, they might think she was dressing as a man?

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

But in Samoa a flowery skirt maybe for a man. Maybe if a women is Samoa wore a flowery skirt, they might think she was dressing as a man?

Actually they both wear it, as it is neither for a man nor a woman, it is just a piece of cloth. 

[LadyKay]

What about shoes? Where athletic shoes first made for a man? I'll have to google it and see if we can debate shoes instead of pants.