Split: Your Views... Women Wearing Pants

[Guest Butero]

 

14. Loves to Impose His Opinion on Others as Truth. But a humble person acts charitably to all, thinks the best of others, and avoids presenting his opinion on a disputable matter as ultimate Truth.

 

Hee Haw....LOL!

 

oops

Since you are the one speaking through the donkey, I would have thought he would have words of wisdom like "trousers are for men and slacks and jeans are for women?"  LOL

[Guest Butero]

if you are saying that all pants are for men, I simply would disagree.  Maybe a hundred years ago in some areas of the world, but not today.  I hope you are not saying we should go back to the 1800's for our standards.

In some ways, that wouldn't be a bad idea?  I wouldn't even have to go back to the 1800s.  If I could go back 100 years, I think I would be pretty comfortable, and in the main stream.  At some point, women had to decide they wanted to wear pants, and the only ones around were made for men.  It was only after a market was created that people started manufacturing pants to sell to women.  At what time did it go from men's clothing and sin to women's clothing and acceptable?  How many trend setters had to sin before it was no longer sin? 

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

I didn't agree with the quote by Jerry Bridges the first time you posted it, and still don't.  Freely you have been given truth and freely you should share truth.  I also reject your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5, and the reason for it.  There is no basis for such an interpretation, except some so-called historian likely made it up, like they make other things up to explain away the plain meaning of passages they don't like.  If you do believe what Jerry Bridges said, why did you attempt to push your personal convictions against horror movies on everyone with 10 points we were supposed to use to validate your belief? 

 

This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed this personal conviction of yours regarding women wearing pants Butero. Did you even read the link I provided?

Um… Sorry I don’t see how I used anything to impose my view on everyone else. I gave my opinion on Horror movies and how I view them. I said in that I didn’t like horror movies and I didn’t see anything in them that honor Christ. This was my personal preference and I never said I thought watching horror movies was a sin. I would say it is probably unwise for me to do - it really messes with me. But to each his own.

 

I then quoted an article originally posted by Nebula . The 10 suggestions seemed like they made sense to me and was a good set of suggestions at that given the current discussion on horror movies. If you were convicted then that is between you and God brother. You are free to disagree with me and with the author Larry Tomczak.

So I don’t see what you’re saying.

 

Now that is perplexing to me, how you can't see what I am saying?  When you say you believe something is wrong, you are just giving your personal opinion, and not pushing it on anyone else, but when I give my opinion on something, I am pushing my view on others?  When you give 10 points that supposedly would help us come to the conclusion something is wrong, that is just something that makes sense to you, but if I give reasons why I see something as wrong, it is pushing my views on others?  I don't see how you can't understand what I am saying?

 

 

You said you view women wearing pants as sin. This means you view it as a sin for OTHER people. And I think Lady Kay has a point - particularly when you say you view something other women do being a sin when you are a man. You are a man. So this isn't just a personal conviction for you but you are trying to say to others how THEY dress is a sin.

 

I said watching horror movies affects me negatively. It is at best unwise to do. I never said it was a sin.

Two VERY different statements.

We are free to disagree with each other on both the subjects of pants and horror movies. To me saying something is a sin (your personal conviction) such as a woman wearing pants is crossing a line by making personal conviction into Biblical truth. Sorry again I don't see what you're trying to say.

 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

My point to Nebula was in regard to how one determines if they are in idolatry?  If it is by attempting to stop doing something, and if it is hard, then it is an idol, my point is valid.  Every woman that has trouble wearing a dress for an extended period of time has made pants an idol.  That was her test, not mine.  It could apply to nearly anything, not just entertainment.  It could apply to sports fans.  If they can't stop watching football for an extended period of time, according to that test, football is an idol to them. 

 

You are making a sweeping judgment (a generalization) by saying that every woman who has trouble wearing a dress for an extended period of time has made pants an idol. Some women simply don’t like wearing dresses or skirts. Some wear pants for work. Some think pants are more practical. Are you saying that women who don’t wear dresses aren’t feminine? Or am I reading into your words and misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

You are misunderstanding what I am saying.  I am saying that this is not a valid test.  What if I said that if you can't give up food for an extended period of time, it is an idol to you?  Nebula said this was a way to determine if something (in her case entertainment), is an idol, and my point is that it isn't a valid test.  If you can apply it to entertainment, you can apply it to women in pants, or anything else for that matter.  I could apply that to water, and how long do you think someone could do without that? 

 

Regardless, I think we had moved past this, as I originally took Nebula's comments as a sweeping judgment of entertainment, and she said I took her wrong.  As such, I don't see any need to continue even discussing this point. 

 

 

Food is a need. Watching a movie isn't. Sorry bad example there.

The issue is when I split this original thread on horror movies there were 25 posts regarding specifically women wearing pants which you brought up.

I agree no need to discuss this further.

[GoldenEagle]

 

 

Now GE, I want to ask you some questions.  Is Concerned Women For America trying to impose their own standard of morality on everyone else by attacking a little boy wearing a skirt?  If a church won't accept a man wearing a dress as a song leader, is that an attempt to impose their personal convictions on others?  If a woman doesn't feel comfortable going out with a man that is wearing a dress, isn't it hypocritical if she expects him to feel good that she is wearing jeans?  Our pagan society is tolerant of a lot of evil things, so we can't go by what they find acceptable.  Can a woman be guilty of wearing clothes that pertain to a man in any circumstance, as women clearly think a man can wear clothes that pertain to a woman?  It is my contention that women feel like they can choose to look however they wish, dress however they want, and be anything they desire, while men must look like a man in their appearance, dress in a way that is masculine, and basically be men.  There is a clear double standard, and I haven't heard one man or woman give a valid reason why this is so?  Not from you and not from anyone else. 

 

Perhaps in the same way you see a double standard for men/women I pointed to your double standard with women (pants) and men (kilts). But in any case...

I don’t believe it is hypocritical for a woman to wear pants. I would not force any woman I knew to wear skirts (including daughters if God ever blesses me with a daughter).

Let me ask you this. Do you think its sin for a man to shave his beard or have long hair?

 

Honestly, I don’t really understand where you’re coming from. Concerned Women for America has the right speak up for what they believe in. You have the right not to wear pants. But when you tell women in general that wearing pants is a sin you are imposing a standard which isn’t found in Scripture. Your in essence elevating your personal preference and determining that to be Biblical truth where in fact this issue of pants is not black/white in my estimation but rather grey.

 

Of course they have that right at Concerned Women For America, just as I have the right to come against women in pants.  If I am elevating my standard to something not found in scripture, so are they, but where is the outrage? 

 

Let me ask you this GE?  I don't expect you to really do this, but just imagine the consequences?  I would assume your church is pretty liberal when it comes to how women dress, likely one of those churches that has a "Come As You Are" sign up from time to time, or at least claims to believe in that philosophy?  What would happen if one Sunday morning, you put on a dress and prepared to go to church?  You wife asks you why you are wearing a dress, and you say you just felt like doing so this week.  How would she react?  Would she go with you like that?  If you get past that obstacle, and show up at church in a dress, how will they react to you?  They ask you about the dress, and you say you just felt like wearing a dress that Sunday.  Perhaps you tell them you wanted to be a trend setter?  How would they react?  Lets say you decided to go to work in a dress?  How would they react?  Would they welcome you?  How about if you had long hair?  Would that be acceptable to them, or would they send you home or fire you?  If anyone said anything negative about it, would you accuse them of elevating their own personal convictions to unbiblical standards?  If you had a son and he wanted to wear a dress, would you be as accepting of it as you would be with a daughter wearing pants? 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right brother. You aren't responsible for the Concerned Women for America's actions. Only your own. Are you admitting that you are elevating your standard to something not found in Scripture?

You have the right to do so yes. But is it really wise to go around saying that women who wear pants sin?

I honestly wouldn't support an organization that tried to attack a child for wearing a dress. Would I want my child wearing it? Nope. However, I don't know the specifics of the example you gave. Why is the child wanting to wear a dress in the first place? Why are the parents allowing it?

I would never wear a dress. I have no interest in kilts either. Lol.

Yes, at my church women can wear pants, shorts, skirts, dresses, etc. I would say that in the South of the U.S. most people who are transgenders wouldn't want to go to a conservative (doctrinally) church. But if someone did I'm sure we would all feel awkward but still try to love them and point them towards Christ. At least that would be my hope.

You are right I probably wouldn't want my son wearing a dress.

 

God bless,

GE

[Sevenseas]

 

14. Loves to Impose His Opinion on Others as Truth. But a humble person acts charitably to all, thinks the best of others, and avoids presenting his opinion on a disputable matter as ultimate Truth.

 

 

 

Well, this thread was about opinions or views as it was split from the other thread 

 

 

Split from this thread...

 

Oh here's a good one.

 

Why did the legalist say horror movies were ok to watch?

 

Because they scare the pants off people.

 

Laugh...it's a joke.                     

[GoldenEagle]

 

1. I see no problem with the items you described as clothes for women. I don't think the term "anything" is really appropriate though for the conversation as it is a bit vague and super-imposes a position that I haven't taken. I can't speak for everyone else lol. Please clarify what you mean by "anything"?

 

By "anything," I mean just that, "anything."  They can wear clothes that are feminine or masculine.  There is no clothing that they could wear that would be considered dressing like a man.  They could wear their husband's clothes, as more than one woman has admitted doing, and be accepted, but let a man wear his wife's dress, and see what happens? 

 

 

I’m not sure that there is NO clothing that women could wear that would be considered dressing like a man. I just don’t see what the hang-up is over guys and dresses?

[GoldenEagle]

 

2. Butero if you want to wear a dress please feel free to do so. No judgement here.

GE, if I walked into your church wearing a dress, I don't believe for one second there would be no judgment from you.  You can say that all you want, but I don't believe it.  I would be looked at like a sinner, and nobody would want me to join the church unless I was prepared to change.  Nobody would ask me to teach their children's Sunday School class, and I wouldn't expect them to.  It is called being effeminate. 

 

 

Okay Butero I was trying to be sarcastic and funny at the same time. Perhaps this wasn’t clear. You say this idea of women not wearing pants is a personal conviction right? If this is a sin to you then don’t do it. The issue I have here is that you are trying to impose your personal conviction or personal preference by taking one passage (never a good thing to base a whole doctrine on one passage surely we can agree?) to tell others and teach others (aren’t you a pastor?) the personal conviction or personal preference is "Biblically" women wearing pants is a sin.

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

I didn't agree with the quote by Jerry Bridges the first time you posted it, and still don't.  Freely you have been given truth and freely you should share truth.  I also reject your interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5, and the reason for it.  There is no basis for such an interpretation, except some so-called historian likely made it up, like they make other things up to explain away the plain meaning of passages they don't like.  If you do believe what Jerry Bridges said, why did you attempt to push your personal convictions against horror movies on everyone with 10 points we were supposed to use to validate your belief? 

 

This isn’t the first time we’ve discussed this personal conviction of yours regarding women wearing pants Butero. Did you even read the link I provided?

Um… Sorry I don’t see how I used anything to impose my view on everyone else. I gave my opinion on Horror movies and how I view them. I said in that I didn’t like horror movies and I didn’t see anything in them that honor Christ. This was my personal preference and I never said I thought watching horror movies was a sin. I would say it is probably unwise for me to do - it really messes with me. But to each his own.

 

I then quoted an article originally posted by Nebula . The 10 suggestions seemed like they made sense to me and was a good set of suggestions at that given the current discussion on horror movies. If you were convicted then that is between you and God brother. You are free to disagree with me and with the author Larry Tomczak.

So I don’t see what you’re saying.

 

Now that is perplexing to me, how you can't see what I am saying?  When you say you believe something is wrong, you are just giving your personal opinion, and not pushing it on anyone else, but when I give my opinion on something, I am pushing my view on others?  When you give 10 points that supposedly would help us come to the conclusion something is wrong, that is just something that makes sense to you, but if I give reasons why I see something as wrong, it is pushing my views on others?  I don't see how you can't understand what I am saying?

 

 

You said you view women wearing pants as sin. This means you view it as a sin for OTHER people. And I think Lady Kay has a point - particularly when you say you view something other women do being a sin when you are a man. You are a man. So this isn't just a personal conviction for you but you are trying to say to others how THEY dress is a sin.

 

I said watching horror movies affects me negatively. It is at best unwise to do. I never said it was a sin.

Two VERY different statements.

We are free to disagree with each other on both the subjects of pants and horror movies. To me saying something is a sin (your personal conviction) such as a woman wearing pants is crossing a line by making personal conviction into Biblical truth. Sorry again I don't see what you're trying to say.

 

God bless,

GE

 

It is making an application.  It is not elevating a personal conviction.  It is no different than if a preacher says smoking is sinful, and he uses the scripture about defiling your temple as the basis for his argument.  Agree or disagree, he has that right and responsibility if he believes God wants him to give that warning. 

 

This being a man argument is absurd.  If that is how you feel on this topic, then you need to tell your minister next Mother's Day that he has no business speaking on the virtuous woman.  This has to do with preaching scripture, and God didn't tell men they can't deal with topics related to women.  Jesus was a man.  I suppose that he has no business saying anything about women either?  How about Paul?  I can see it now?  We will have a woman saying that those scriptures about wives being in submission to their husbands bother them because they came from a man?  Get real!  BTW, I posted a link to a web-site a woman runs where she teaches women they shouldn't wear pants. 

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

My point to Nebula was in regard to how one determines if they are in idolatry?  If it is by attempting to stop doing something, and if it is hard, then it is an idol, my point is valid.  Every woman that has trouble wearing a dress for an extended period of time has made pants an idol.  That was her test, not mine.  It could apply to nearly anything, not just entertainment.  It could apply to sports fans.  If they can't stop watching football for an extended period of time, according to that test, football is an idol to them. 

 

You are making a sweeping judgment (a generalization) by saying that every woman who has trouble wearing a dress for an extended period of time has made pants an idol. Some women simply don’t like wearing dresses or skirts. Some wear pants for work. Some think pants are more practical. Are you saying that women who don’t wear dresses aren’t feminine? Or am I reading into your words and misunderstanding what you are saying?

 

You are misunderstanding what I am saying.  I am saying that this is not a valid test.  What if I said that if you can't give up food for an extended period of time, it is an idol to you?  Nebula said this was a way to determine if something (in her case entertainment), is an idol, and my point is that it isn't a valid test.  If you can apply it to entertainment, you can apply it to women in pants, or anything else for that matter.  I could apply that to water, and how long do you think someone could do without that? 

 

Regardless, I think we had moved past this, as I originally took Nebula's comments as a sweeping judgment of entertainment, and she said I took her wrong.  As such, I don't see any need to continue even discussing this point. 

 

 

Food is a need. Watching a movie isn't. Sorry bad example there.

The issue is when I split this original thread on horror movies there were 25 posts regarding specifically women wearing pants which you brought up.

I agree no need to discuss this further.

 

It wasn't my intent to bring it up 25 times.  I made an example to show that different people view different things as sinful, and one person after another wouldn't let me return to the OP.  I tried more than once, but I wasn't going to ignore questions posed to me.  The point I was making is her test to see if we are in idolatry can be compared to anything we are doing.  It is an excellent example, but I will take note that you don't agree.