Common sense says that if the pagans are doing it then there is a very good reason why God would warn against doing it. Good grief. Pagans did that which was contrary to God's will for man. They not only mixed dress, but committed fornication and homosexuality. Why WOULDN'T the bible warn against it? It's common sense. The WORD got it right, in fact even in our day and age we see men dressing up like women and vise versa.
The bible also warns of cutting themselves like the pagans did. Offering sons and daughters in fire to Molech like the pagans did. The Pagans didn't have a problem with blurring the distinction in sexes and that blurring was related to demonic worship it seems by what you are saying (Pagans did not worship God), so why wouldn't it make sense to you?
Prax,
You are contradicting what you supported - vehemently - I might add.
Quote:
As the property of a neighbour was to be sacred in the estimation of an Israelite, so also the divine distinction of the sexes, which was kept sacred in civil life by the clothing peculiar to each sex, was to be not less but even more sacredly observed. “There shall not be man's things upon a woman, and a man shall not put on a woman's clothes.” כּלי does not signify clothing merely, nor arms only, but includes every kind of domestic and other utensils (as in Exo_22:6; Lev_11:32; Lev_13:49). The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices (the proofs which Spencer has adduced of the existence of such usages among heathen nations are very far-fetched); but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin. Every violation or wiping out of this distinction - such even, for example, as the emancipation of a woman - was unnatural, and therefore an abomination in the sight of God.
Prax,
You are contradicting what you supported - vehemently - I might add.
No im not at all, let alone "vehemently" which is a pretty subjective emotive term. I never said it was to prohibit idolatrous practices. The pagans blur the distinction of the sexes. You said they did it for religious practices. So what? They still do it. You said it is not common sense to forbid such things. I said it makes perfect sense. The pagans blur the distinction. It's not God's will to do that. Pagans do things that are against his will. They also fornicate. They also steal. They do lot's of things God forbids. Whether they do it as a religious practice or not is irrelevant.
That kind of reasoning might have you saying Homosexual acts are ok as long as they are not done for religious practice, which is the homosexual argument of what the bible forbids of men lying with men
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
No im not at all, let alone "vehemently" which is a pretty subjective emotive term. I never said it was to prohibit idolatrous practices. The pagans blur the distinction of the sexes. You said they did it for religious practices. So what? They still do it. You said it is not common sense to forbid such things. I said it makes perfect sense. The pagans blur the distinction. It's not God's will to do that. Pagans do things that are against his will. They also fornicate. They also steal. They do lot's of things God forbids. Whether they do it as a religious practice or not is irrelevant.
That kind of reasoning might have you saying Homosexual acts are ok as long as they are not done for religious practice, which is the homosexual argument of what the bible forbids of men lying with men
I am saying that you wanted me to understand and agree with what you posted by K&D. I am saying that I do not agree because they said this:
Quote:
The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices....but to maintain the sanctity of that distinction of the sexes which was established by the creation of man and woman, and in relation to which Israel was not to sin.
What I am saying is that, IMO, this statement is something that I cannot agree with because it has to include an element of idolatrous practice as was the norm of the day. They are saying the commandment is not reaching for that thought and is settling, basically, on a domestic point only and I disagree.
They are saying that it covers all elements of the domestic life and not just the clothing. If it did cover more it would say so above and below the passage.
They, therefore, have pulled other scriptures to bolster their point and I don't agree with it.
What do they mean by "emancipation of the woman"? What does that statement entail? Is it a woman as a lesbian or a woman that doesn't want to be subject to a man's authority in domestic life?
No im not at all, let alone "vehemently" which is a pretty subjective emotive term. I never said it was to prohibit idolatrous practices. The pagans blur the distinction of the sexes. You said they did it for religious practices. So what? They still do it. You said it is not common sense to forbid such things. I said it makes perfect sense. The pagans blur the distinction. It's not God's will to do that. Pagans do things that are against his will. They also fornicate. They also steal. They do lot's of things God forbids. Whether they do it as a religious practice or not is irrelevant.
That kind of reasoning might have you saying Homosexual acts are ok as long as they are not done for religious practice, which is the homosexual argument of what the bible forbids of men lying with men
Quote:
You said it is not common sense to forbid such things.
I don't recall making this statement as it would contradict my argument. If you could direct me to that, I'd appreciate it. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
OK, seriously if it wasn't LadyRev (just kidding LadyRev) then what was it?
It wasn't a particular person, but there was an awful lot of immodesty I saw by girls who had on the uniform, but it didn't fit right. I saw several who had skirts on that were quite short....so short I had to look away! I just think that there are things being put on the backburner that are more important.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
It wasn't a particular person, but there was an awful lot of immodesty I saw by girls who had on the uniform, but it didn't fit right. I saw several who had skirts on that were quite short....so short I had to look away! I just think that there are things being put on the backburner that are more important.
not a truer word spoken this day, so right sis, dt
Common sense says that if the pagans are doing it then there is a very good reason why God would warn against doing it. Good grief. Pagans did that which was contrary to God's will for man. They not only mixed dress, but committed fornication and homosexuality. Why WOULDN'T the bible warn against it? It's common sense. The WORD got it right, in fact even in our day and age we see men dressing up like women and vise versa.
The bible also warns of cutting themselves like the pagans did. Offering sons and daughters in fire to Molech like the pagans did. The Pagans didn't have a problem with blurring the distinction in sexes and that blurring was related to demonic worship it seems by what you are saying (Pagans did not worship God), so why wouldn't it make sense to you?
The difference is, when men dress in women's clothes, they are giving themselves the appearance of a woman, and it's in more ways than just their clothing. They act like women, and even resort to surgery to become women.
Women who wear men's clothing do the same thing. I've even seen them with mustaches. It's wrong for one gender to wear what belongs to the other gender in a manner that they want to become the other gender. IOW, it's not wrong for a woman to don her husband's suitcoat when she's cold because she is not doing so to give herself the appearance of being a man.
On the contrary, women who wear women's pants are not doing so to look like men. Their mannerisms are feminine, their hair is feminine, and everything about them is feminine. They are not trying to become men just because they wear pants.
You seem to be saying that the Bible....rather, Deut 22:5 is saying that the action of putting on the clothing of the other gender is wrong in and of itself, but the problem with that is, clothing styles changes from time to time, and that's evident since both genders wore the same garment when that verse was written.
So, how did people in the Bible days know the difference in men and women who wore the same garment? Easy! Their mannerisms, behaviors, facial hair on men, ornamentations, etc!
The sin, the abomination is making what gender God made you appear to be something He didn't. It's just hard to comprehend why one verse speaking of clothing only would be put in the middle of other verses that have nothing to do with that subject to be potentially lost.
Not to mention that the Bible only mentions it once....if your assertion is true. If it were that important, God wouldn't have made it so obscure.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
To further the point, or rather, to repeat the premise of my argument.
If you don't believe that the KJV is accurate than there is no point. I believe it is as accurate as we can be saved by it.
Therefore, the usage of the word "wear" in Deut 22:5 is important because it pulls an element of a strong word that is even used for God - "to become".
It could have used, easily, as I have stated - lâbash lâbêsh, which means to put on a garment or clothe yourself".
The writer didn't choose to use that word, but used, hâyâh, instead.
As HO said, it is not simply trying to say, "Don't wear this." Is is saying, "Don't become the gender that God did not create you to be."
My problem then is, we are using this passage to bolster a religious ordinance of women not wearing pants. We have cultures that have worn them and it doesn't matter what America's culture is. It still does not make Deut simply about clothing, but an unnatural gender change. So the "gender distinction" is actually referring to an "unnatural" distinction and not a clothing style.
Having said that, I will also reaffirm that, IMO, I don't believe that a good deal of women's pants can be classified as modest, and I don't believe many of our skirts are modest. We should dress appropriately, as many do, for skiing, hunting, etc. It is just common sense.
I am saying that you wanted me to understand and agree with what you posted by K&D. I am saying that I do not agree because they said this:
What I am saying is that, IMO, this statement is something that I cannot agree with because it has to include an element of idolatrous practice as was the norm of the day. They are saying the commandment is not reaching for that thought and is settling, basically, on a domestic point only and I disagree.
They are saying that it covers all elements of the domestic life and not just the clothing. If it did cover more it would say so above and below the passage.
They, therefore, have pulled other scriptures to bolster their point and I don't agree with it.
What do they mean by "emancipation of the woman"? What does that statement entail? Is it a woman as a lesbian or a woman that doesn't want to be subject to a man's authority in domestic life?
Why does it HAVE to include an element of idolatrous practice?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
I don't recall making this statement as it would contradict my argument. If you could direct me to that, I'd appreciate it. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
Or maybe I misunderstood what you were saying
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Linear Mode
