Different denominations working together for community service...

[Gargamel Bojangles]

some denominations say women cant wear pants. How is this Biblical when pants didnt exist when the Bible was written?

[Guest Butero]

17 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

 Two things...

I reject the idea that if something is applied to one area it has to be applied to all. God gave a specific example of marriage, but did not do so for clothing.  This is because clothing is different in every culture.  I did a mission trip to American Somoa and their norms are diffent than our, as are each of the Africian nations I have visited.  With your approach all these Christians would be heading south when they died.

I also reject the idea that God is condemning people to hell based off of how something is marketed, that is just beyond silly 

Your objections are duly noted, but I reject them.  I would also suspect that the other churches that hold to the same view I do would also reject them.  All I have to do to show it is sinful for women to wear pants is to show they pertain to a man.  That is the simplest thing in the world to do.  There is that universal symbol of a man and a woman.  Which pertains to which sex?  Deuteronomy 22:5 states that the woman is not to wear that which pertains to a man, not that is made for a man.  I would also point out that jeans are not feminine.  They never were.  The scripture in 1 Corinthians makes it clear that a man is not to wear feminine looking clothes.  Look up the definition of the word translated to effeminate.  I have.  If men are not to wear feminine style clothing, women surely aren't to wear masculine style clothing.  This just goes hand in hand with what is stated in Deuteronomy.  I have actually seen women wear clothing marketed and sold to men. 

Let me tell you a story of a couple of things I have observed.  First, I used to work at a home for troubled girls called "Teen Challenge."  The director, who had no problem with women wearing pants, had a rule in place that the girls had to wear a skirt or dress to class each day and chapel services.  I asked him why and he said that some had been involved with lesbianism or had the attraction to other women, and he wanted them to feel more feminine by requiring they wear more feminine clothes at least part of the day.  At this same ministry, the local Food Bank got in some jeans marketed to men, and he tried to get them for this ministry for the girls to wear.  He said there was no real difference in men's jeans and women's.  That is what he said to defend this, but when he wanted to defend women wearing pants, there was all of a sudden this huge difference in them.  That is how this all works. 

I used to work with a lady at Wal-Mart who was very tall.  She would purchase jeans in the men's department because that was the only size that fit her.  I was in California one time and there was a man at a convenience store who was joking about how he was wearing pants that belonged to his girl friend.  They fit him because they were the same size.  Recently, I saw a mother and son wearing matching outfits.  There was a picture on a trucker's magazine of a couple where you literally couldn't tell which one was the man because both had short hair and wore clothing that was very masculine in appearance.  I have encountered women that it took me 3 or 4 tries to figure out if they were male or female.  I saw an episode of Saturday Night Live making a joke about a person named Pat that wore pants and had short hair and the skit was about trying to tell if it was a man or woman, and we were never told.  This is a total abomination and a perversion.  I don't care how silly you think it is, and I will make this offer to you or anyone else.  I will be glad to debate the merits of this topic one on one with anyone in the Soap Box.  I don't believe you can win such a debate because I know just about every argument under the sun I have debated this so long.   A draw would be a win for me because it casts doubt on the right or wrong of the practice.  Would you like to represent that side of the argument in such a debate?  Let me know.  Heck, I could debate myself on the issue I know the arguments so well. 

[Guest Butero]

2 minutes ago, Gargamel Bojangles said:

some denominations say women cant wear pants. How is this Biblical when pants didnt exist when the Bible was written?

How is playing with a OUIJA board wrong when they didn't exist in Bible days?   How is watching porn films wrong when they didn't exist in Bible days?   The issue is women wearing that which pertains to a man or clothing that is masculine.  There is this thing called making application.  If I use that kind of logic, I can justify all kinds of sinful behavior because they weren't mentioned specifically by name. 

[Vendtre]

Easy win for me, just have to show that what "pertains" to a man changes between cultures and decades and has been since the dawn of time.  

What "pertains to a man" is based 100% on the views of the society and thus is in constant flux.

[Guest Butero]

1 minute ago, Vendtre said:

Easy win for me, just have to show that what "pertains" to a man changes between cultures and decades and has been since the dawn of time.  

What "pertains to a man" is based 100% on the views of the society and thus is in constant flux.

Lets do it brother.  Make my day.  I have answers for the cultural arguments, so you bring on anything you think will give you that slam dunk win, and we can go at it.  I assure you, it won't be as easy as you think.

[Gargamel Bojangles]

5 minutes ago, Butero said:

How is playing with a OUIJA board wrong when they didn't exist in Bible days?   How is watching porn films wrong when they didn't exist in Bible days?   The issue is women wearing that which pertains to a man or clothing that is masculine.  There is this thing called making application.  If I use that kind of logic, I can justify all kinds of sinful behavior because they weren't mentioned specifically by name. 

this is an invalid comparison because there are pants that are specifically designed for women.....your ouija argument is also invalid because the Bible clearly speaks of communing with spirits as being forbidden

[junobet]

23 minutes ago, Butero said:

Then lets all join a nudist camp.  If he wanted us to wear clothes, we would have come out of the womb fully dressed.

I’m German, so culturally I haven’t got a problem with nudist camps and I love going to the sauna. But with the temperatures we have at the moment I’d rather put on a woolly jumper and a big shawl on the way there.

But if you couldn’t go to the sauna or a nudist camp without getting dirty thoughts, I recommend you don’t go. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

As was already indicated: Fashions change. We shouldn’t confuse our own human cultural norms and dress-codes with what is ok with God. So IMHO to scorn somebody for the way he/she dresses is slightly talibanesque.

[Gargamel Bojangles]

2 minutes ago, junobet said:

 

I’m German, so culturally I haven’t got a problem with nudist camps and I love going to the sauna. But with the temperatures we have at the moment I’d rather put on a woolly jumper and a big shawl on the way there.

But if you couldn’t go to the sauna or a nudist camp without getting dirty thoughts, I recommend you don’t go. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

As was already indicated: Fashions change. We shouldn’t confuse our own human cultural norms and dress-codes with what is ok with God. So IMHO to scorn somebody for the way he/she dresses is slightly talibanesque.

i agree... by that logic, we may as well make women wear a burka

[bfloydo]

2 hours ago, Teditis said:

5 minutes ago, Butero said:

Your objections are duly noted, but I reject them.  I would also suspect that the other churches that hold to the same view I do would also reject them.  All I have to do to show it is sinful for women to wear pants is to show they pertain to a man.  That is the simplest thing in the world to do.  There is that universal symbol of a man and a woman.  Which pertains to which sex?  Deuteronomy 22:5 states that the woman is not to wear that which pertains to a man, not that is made for a man.  I would also point out that jeans are not feminine.  They never were.  The scripture in 1 Corinthians makes it clear that a man is not to wear feminine looking clothes.  Look up the definition of the word translated to effeminate.  I have.  If men are not to wear feminine style clothing, women surely aren't to wear masculine style clothing.  This just goes hand in hand with what is stated in Deuteronomy.  I have actually seen women wear clothing marketed and sold to men. 

Let me tell you a story of a couple of things I have observed.  First, I used to work at a home for troubled girls called "Teen Challenge."  The director, who had no problem with women wearing pants, had a rule in place that the girls had to wear a skirt or dress to class each day and chapel services.  I asked him why and he said that some had been involved with lesbianism or had the attraction to other women, and he wanted them to feel more feminine by requiring they wear more feminine clothes at least part of the day.  At this same ministry, the local Food Bank got in some jeans marketed to men, and he tried to get them for this ministry for the girls to wear.  He said there was no real difference in men's jeans and women's.  That is what he said to defend this, but when he wanted to defend women wearing pants, there was all of a sudden this huge difference in them.  That is how this all works. 

I used to work with a lady at Wal-Mart who was very tall.  She would purchase jeans in the men's department because that was the only size that fit her.  I was in California one time and there was a man at a convenience store who was joking about how he was wearing pants that belonged to his girl friend.  They fit him because they were the same size.  Recently, I saw a mother and son wearing matching outfits.  There was a picture on a trucker's magazine of a couple where you literally couldn't tell which one was the man because both had short hair and wore clothing that was very masculine in appearance.  I have encountered women that it took me 3 or 4 tries to figure out if they were male or female.  I saw an episode of Saturday Night Live making a joke about a person named Pat that wore pants and had short hair and the skit was about trying to tell if it was a man or woman, and we were never told.  This is a total abomination and a perversion.  I don't care how silly you think it is, and I will make this offer to you or anyone else.  I will be glad to debate the merits of this topic one on one with anyone in the Soap Box.  I don't believe you can win such a debate because I know just about every argument under the sun I have debated this so long.   A draw would be a win for me because it casts doubt on the right or wrong of the practice.  Would you like to represent that side of the argument in such a debate?  Let me know.  Heck, I could debate myself on the issue I know the arguments so well. 

 

 

 

  Wow such absolute conviction, What about these facts?

1.) God did want us naked at 1 time, then we disobeyed and as I read it he created Coats of skins for US to hide our shame.

2.) God created Coats( garments, tunics) --- depending on translation.... dont see pants or dress.

3.) Many men probably including Paul wear/ wore what I would consider a dress( or tunic, wore by Romans ), and many wear similar garments today - called kilts

4.) Help me to recall Jesus telling anyone " go forth and change to appropriate garments "

5.) A lot of women started wearing pant because it was more appropriate and comfortable while riding horses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The_Patriot21]

2 hours ago, Butero said:

One more thing I want to add.  What is a marriage Patriot?  If you think it is the union of a man and a woman, you are so behind the times.  Marriage today can be a union of two men and two women.  Cultural changes don't suddenly make something wrong into something right. 

Completely different issue. Problem is what is considered men's clothing and women's clothing has changed so many times to be unbelievable. At one time woman had to wear a corset, and if they didn't it was immodest and men used that same verse to justify it. The dresses women wore when you were a child would be considered immoral 100 years before that. In the time that verse was written, both men and woman wore robes that were just as similar as woman's and men's pants are today and it was totally acceptable, because they were both similar They also had enough differences to tell the difference between man and woman, same with men's pants and woman's pants today.

 

That verse only specifies that they can't wear the exact same thing, that they can't appear like a man. It does not say "only men can wear pants" and "women should only wear dresses" that does NOT appear in scripture anywhere. It is the culture that defines men's and women's clothing and in today, in America, the culture allows women to wear parts-and in the vast majority of cases they are cut and designed different then mens pants so as long as they are modest they are allowed biblically. 

 

As far as what is marriage I do believe the Bible gives a black and white definition, so your marriage argument is irrelevant to this discussion.