What shall I do with this word - "Wear"?

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

My problem with the K&D is this:

• The immediate design of this prohibition was not to prevent licentiousness, or to oppose idolatrous practices
• 
  and
• 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.

Now, Prax, in all practicality and for the sake of just plain old common sense - WHY does the scripture even address a man even attempting to put on a woman's clothing?

In their time period it was part of the pagan rituals of sacrifice to don the clothes of the opposite sex and have licentious sexual activities.

Now, if that was not even happening, WHY would the Word even speak of a man donning a woman's clothing - just for fun or what?

The distinction of sexes - my goodness - that is just ridiculous for me to comprehend. If the Word is worried about a man wearing a woman's clothing then - hello - something is rotten in Denmark - just logically.

It isn't speaking of gender distinction. It is speaking of existing and living the part of the opposite sex - the abomination.

LOVE this PO!!! Common sense! Common sense! Common sense!

Break it on down for us!

[rgcraig]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

LOVE this PO!!! Common sense! Common sense! Common sense!

Break it on down for us!

I really can't understand why someone wants to continue to twist that scripture around to make it "fit" a standard that should just be that - - a standard of preference.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I really can't understand why someone wants to continue to twist that scripture around to make it "fit" a standard that should just be that - - a standard of preference.

BECAUSE YOU MUST BE CONTROLLED!!!!!

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Alter Ego

BECAUSE YOU MUST BE CONTROLLED!!!!!

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by rgcraig

I really can't understand why someone wants to continue to twist that scripture around to make it "fit" a standard that should just be that - - a standard of preference.

And it will only get harder to understand as time marches on because pants are not ONLY 'men's clothing' in our society.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

And it will only get harder to understand as time marches on because pants are NOT 'men's clothing' in our society.

They aren't? What should I wear then?


Oh yes they call him the streak,
He likes to show off his physique!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I didn't call you any names. Second, you referred to all these people as Lutheran boys as though that were some sort of trump card that automatically means they are wrong. That's as absurd a claim as when Atheist evolutionists dismiss any scientists argument for Intelligent Design because the scientist is Christian.

What I am saying, from the scripture verse to their comments, is that it doesn't add up and seems, like Matthew Henry, that they've added their personal opinion about women, which would have been the norm of that time.

Now, I don't, largely, have a problem with that. It just becomes a problem when it appears to skew the scriptures for personal interpretation. Hence, the jest about "Lutheran boys".

When you say that my comments are asinine, I interpret that as you calling me an ***.

It's the same as my teenage daughter telling me something I said was stupid. She is in fact calling me stupid.

Plus, it doesn't make for smooth conversation to say people's comments are asinine, stupid, etc. Unless, of course, you are like Altar Ego and say that Jethrine was "hot". Now, that is stupid.

[Jehoram]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

What I am saying, from the scripture verse to their comments, is that it doesn't add up and seems, like Matthew Henry, that they've added their personal opinion about women, which would have been the norm of that time.

Now, I don't, largely, have a problem with that. It just becomes a problem when it appears to skew the scriptures for personal interpretation. Hense, the jest about "Lutheran boys".

When you say that my comments are asinine, I interpret that as you calling me an ***.

It's the same as my teenage daughter telling me something I said was stupid. She is in fact calling me stupid.

Plus, it doesn't make for smooth conversation to say people's comments are asinine, stupid, etc. Unless, of course, you are like Altar Ego and say that Jethrine was "hot". Now, that is stupid.

Jethrine was hot! Nothing like a strong woman. You are just jealous you can't pick up trees by their roots.

[Subdued]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

And it will only get harder to understand as time marches on because pants are NOT 'men's clothing' in our society.

And now that pants being for men only is no longer an issue in our society, they are said to be immodest... for women, only, of course.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Good points. Never thought of it that way.

Right, HO. The point is that in the NT the woman is instructed to dress modestly. It doesn't even cover a sexual distinction, but it does cover homosexuality.