Different denominations working together for community service...

[bfloydo]

20 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

lettter of the law:  sinner caught in adultery  > death by stoning.

spirit of the law in Christ Jesus: sinner caught in adultery > "Neither do I accuse you, go and sin no more"

 I agree 100%, Spirit of the law was Jesus primary ministry. Some of God's children are not reborn and being in the womb ...not ready for milk, some feed on milk, and some solid food.... I hope it bears fruit for some.

[Guest Butero]

1 hour ago, Gargamel Bojangles said:

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

It is not invalid at all, given what I was responding to.  The Bible says that the woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man.  It doesn't say she shall not wear clothing specifically made for a man.  That means I must make application, which I have done.  A OUIJA board is considered but a game to some, and isn't mentioned in the Bible, so this is a perfectly valid argument. 

[Guest Butero]

1 hour 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 am glad to know you are ok with public nudity.  You are an ideal person to be on the opposite side of the argument from me.  Thank you.  In addition to that, thank you for the comparison to the Taliban.  I love those silly comparisons.  Things were getting too serious, and you gave me a good laugh.  Thanks again. 

[ayin jade]

Perhaps the "women and pants, right or wrong" discussion could go to its own thread and not derail this one?

[Guest Butero]

1 hour ago, Gargamel Bojangles said:

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

That might be a better choice than public nudity.  What is funny to me in addition to the silly comparison itself is that another person came in here during another pants debate.  Apparently she thought it was over decency, because she didn't read it carefully enough, and she brought in that burka argument.  When she discovered it was over women wearing what pertains to a man, the argument went out the window.  Thank you too for the Muslim comparisons.  It really lightened the mood. 

[missmuffet]

Skirts? Pants? Sprinkles? Dunks?- Can we still work together?

Skirts? pants? It all has to be kept modest 1 Timothy 2:9-10

Sprinkles? Dunks? it does not matter. It has nothing to do with salvation. These issues should not divide us. 

[Guest Butero]

58 minutes ago, bfloydo said:

 

 

  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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Before the fall, there was no knowledge of good and evil, and nudity was normal, plus there are some that believe they had some kind of natural covering that was lost.  I don't see pants or dresses either, so since that is the case, I suppose it would be just fine for a man to wear a bra and evening gown?  They are not mentioned by name.  Paul did not wear a dress.  A robe is not a dress.  If you go to the store and ask for a robe, they won't mix it up with a dress or claim they are one and the same.  Jesus didn't have to tell anyone to go change their clothes as they were not wearing what pertains to the opposite sex to my knowledge, but he did say to go and sin no more.  I don't care why women started wearing men's clothes.  That is not the issue, but even that is debatable.  I have read it was so women could more easily do jobs traditionally for men and was part of the feminist movement.  There is no way to prove either of these is true or false.  They are competing historical facts. 

[Gargamel Bojangles]

4 minutes ago, Butero said:

I have already covered this issueThat might be a better choice than public nudity.  What is funny to me in addition to the silly comparison itself is that another person came in here during another pants debate.  Apparently she thought it was over decency, because she didn't read it carefully enough, and she brought in that burka argument.  When she discovered it was over women wearing what pertains to a man, the argument went out the window.  Thank you too for the Muslim comparisons.  It really lightened the mood. 

I have already covered this issue of what pertains to my man and what pertains to a woman. This is strictly a cultural thing yes you can go to African countries where no one wears pants. Show me specifically in the Bible where it says that pants pertain to a man. I'm not interested in opinions show me scriptures

[Guest Butero]

53 minutes ago, The_Patriot2016 said:

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.

My comparison is completely valid because you are using a cultural norm argument to justify women wearing pants.  If you are going to use a cultural norm argument for that, I am going to use the same argument with regard to what is a marriage in our culture.  No it doesn't mention pants.  The Bible doesn't tell us that watching porn is sinful either, but we are told not to lust.  Still, porn isn't mentioned by name so it must be ok.  It is all about application.  The Bible doesn't tell men not to wear a sun dress, so that must be ok.  Boy George must be just fine the way he dresses. 

[Guest Butero]

47 minutes ago, hmbld said:

It is easy to argue the letter of the law and yet completely miss the intent of the law. 

It is also easy to think you know the intent when you don't.