More on Skirts

[Aquila]

Analytical question. May not even be related to the discussion.

Isn't it possible to hate, or dislike, an organization or movement based on a difference in belief, ethics, politics, or agenda, and still love the people who are a part of it? I think it is.

No horror stories, but generally speaking, I've seen the politics and corruption within several organizations. And, although some might disagree, one organization stands out above the rest that I have known personally. I've even found that mental health services have profiles on organizations and movements that are authoritarian and tend to leave a significant number of bruised and psychologically abused people in their wake. Some organizations or movements are notorious for a wide range of abuses that include polygamy, pedophilia, extortion, fraud, domestic violence, incest, manipulation, isolation, emotional and psychological abuse. Look at Scientology, while I have never dealt with them personally, their corruption is rather widely known.

Is it wrong to hate an organization that is known for its abuses, especially after experiencing some of them personally?

[Aquila]

I think organized religion tends to outlive its original vision and often becomes a system that is dedicated to its own survival, even to the point of taking extreme positions to put followers in bondage. Sometimes those in leadership don't realize it, but they are buying into a psychology of abuse and bondage. Followers buy into the psychology too, and give their loyalties to the system. One who has spent decades in such a movement and had been sold out to it, will face tremendous psychological and emotional problems as they try to break free of the brain washing.

For example, if an organization teaches that one must attend church only on Thursdays, else one commits abomination, followers will naturally sell out to that belief and defend it at all costs, believing it's true. Those considering breaking away over internal abuses will see that no other churches have Thursday as a holy day. They would leave, but they've been conditioned to see abomination almost everywhere but within the organization. These will likely remain in the organization and tolerate the abuse, justifying it as a trial of their faith.

Extreme positions are often a red flag that a religious movement is dangerous. The more positions they hold that are extreme, the stronger the hold on members. The only downside for them is that as their positions become more extreme to keep members in bondage, the more difficult it becomes to pull outsiders in, because they have no loyalties to the extreme positions. So, they down play the extreme position they hold about Thursday until one buys into it, then it becomes a make or break issue. This is a big red flag.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Pliny

you don't have principles. You have a legalistic mindset bound to a subjective model - your opinion. You reject God's word in favor of your opinion.

That is your prerogative but it is sad when you attack someone for taking a Biblical stand.

The Holy Ghost will NEVER contradict the Bible. The Bible was given by the Holy Ghost:
(2Pe 1:21 ESV) For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

To reject the Word is to reject the Holy Ghost.

We simply reject your interpretation of a biblical passage, in other words we reject your opinion of what God word means.

We are not attacking you, we are attacking your erroneous ideas.

We do not reject the word, we simply reject your personal theology.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No such thing as women's pants.

OK, since there is no such thing as women't pants, I would like to send you some nice pants with nice flowery designs in bright pink colors, they are not women's pants since they do not exist, so it should be no problem for you to wear them to work, to walk around in the streets and also to go to church.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK, since there is no such thing as women't pants, I would like to send you some nice pants with nice flowery designs in bright pink colors, they are not women's pants since they do not exist, so it should be no problem for you to wear them to work, to walk around in the streets and also to go to church.

Lol

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You must not get out much.

About 2/3 of all professing Christians believe only the Roman Catholic Church is God's church.

Of the remainder, a large number are Eastern Orthodox, who believe there is no salvation outside of being in good standing with one of the Orthodox churches or perhaps the Roman church.

Of the ones that are left:

Most Calvinists believe you are probably not saved unless you're a Calvinist.

Baptists for the most part believe salvation and church are different things, but LOTS AND LOTS believe God's church is a BAPTIST church.

Church of Christ, and many of their cousins in the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and "Community Churches" believe THEY are the church, and nobody gets saved outside of their way.

Many Church of God denominations each believe THEY ALONE are God's church. Many go as far as to believe NOBODY ELSE is saved.

All you have left, compared to "Christianity at large", is a smidgeon of evangelical and charismatic and pentecostal churches who generally have no doctrine beyond "believe you're a Christian and you are one". Oh, and the Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and some others who don't even believe in being saved anyway.

So, who's claiming a monopoly on truth?

Pretty much everybody is.

You included.

I'm aware. There has always been this tendency to divide, even the apostles sought to forbid someone doing God's work because they weren't part of their group. The problem was bigger by the writing of Corinthians and different factions that were developing, and as history tells us, has always been a blight on Christianity.

Yet many Christians, especially since the beginnings of the refirmation, back into the 1100s-1200s had fellowship with other believers despite differences of opinion. There were exceptions, such as Luther being a jerk to the Zwinglians despite their being united against the errors of the RCC. The persecution of early anabaptists, and other instances.

Just because some condemn all except their own doesn't mean that Christ diesn't have sheep amongst their various fellowships.

Do you really believe all baptists are lost? All Methodist? All Church of Christ? Etc.

Do you really not know any other true believer, save those who are of your own stripe?

Sad. You must not get out much.

I enjoy fellowship with pentecostals, Reformed, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodist. Its a great thing to get outside the bubble.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

OK, since there is no such thing as women't pants, I would like to send you some nice pants with nice flowery designs in bright pink colors, they are not women's pants since they do not exist, so it should be no problem for you to wear them to work, to walk around in the streets and also to go to church.

FZ you then would have to accept in the new cultural interpretation of marriage.
Logically you believe applying designs to a masculine item suddenly transforms the item? I guess placing a swatstika on the back of the Kipa makes it a Nazi Yarmulke? But you can't understand the fallacy, because the culture around you dictates your religious views. Pants are strictly male attire. Katastole is female attire.

[Aquila]

In the Bible, they wore what was culturally acceptable. Pliny even posted a reference to standard inner garments (for both genders) including pantaloons.

If what happened in the Bible happened today, women would be wearing pants, dresses, and skirts.

Remember, all attire belonging to both men and women in ancient Israel was relatively alike with corresponding articles of clothing.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Aquila

In the Bible, they wore what was culturally acceptable. Pliny even posted a reference to standard inner garments (for both genders) including pantaloons.

If what happened in the Bible happened today, women would be wearing pants, dresses, and skirts.

Remember, all attire belonging to both men and women in ancient Israel was relatively alike with corresponding articles of clothing.

They'll never accept it. THIS is the hill they die on. To them to affirm that a woman can wear slacks and not sin, is to fall away from the "apostolic" faith. Its why they gnash their teeth against you, Zword, NDavid, and others.

Even though y'all all fall under the "apostolic" unbrella, these guys don't believe y'all are even brothers. Y'all are just heretics, compromisers, and charismatics.

[Aquila]

Deuteronomy 22:5
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

No specifics are given in the text. No specific prohibitions on bifurcated attire are given anywhere else. All that we're told is that men aren't to wear things made for a woman, nor a woman things made for a man.

All cultural examples are not edicts, and if fact, they are only implications we as individuals draw from Israelite and surrounding culture. And if we can draw from any cultural example biblical or classical, we can draw from our own.

Just an observation...

I'm sitting here in an ice-cream shop as I people-watch. I see women wearing both pants and dresses. Most dresses and pants and shirts are being worn immodestly in my opinion. A couple guys are in immodest muscle shirts, one is in jeans that are too tight.

As I observe the jeans women are wearing, I see that they are cut differently, designed to pertain to a woman. I wouldn't wear them, nor would any other male I know. They pertain to women.