More on Skirts

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Guys, you're watering down the seriousness of an abomination. Do you tolerate a gay couple in a sexual relationship until you deem they are spiritually mature?

So, you lost the argument.

Where is the list? I gave you a list of verses and asked you a question.
Yet, I don't see any answers to what I asked you.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you tolerate a pedophile until they are what you deem to be spiritually mature?

No, I would call the police on you. Yet, topic wasn't in my list of verses.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you tolerate a Polyamorous couple living in orgiastic copulation until you think they are spiritually mature?

You must preach to a bunch of saved people. Anyway, you aren't even being honest at this point. Because you are just trying to figure out a way to win an argument. I haven't a clue as to what you believe you are doing at your "house church" but you must skin them before you let them in. I catch them first, and let God skin them of their abominations. Are you currently involved in a few yourself?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Where I come from, an abomination isn't something you tolerate until someone grows out of it. You lovingly warn them of how God detests the thing they are doing.

Yep, you lost the argument, and now are resorting to contradicting yourself. Or else you just haven't the foggiest idea what a not tolerating something means. Lovingly tell a pedophile to stop molesting children? No, you have him arrested. Someone has multiple partners, they need salvation, and that is where preaching comes in. They don't get it, they don't want it. They leave. Oh, I forgot, you live in a better part of town. Not where we live in the ghetto.

Originally Posted by Aquila

They are in imminent danger of provoking God. The only proper response from one who desires to be saved must be repentance. If you tolerate an abomination, if you soft peddle the issue, you partake in that abomination.

Aquila? Whip n chair ministry? So, how's the shunning the guy or gal with the proud look going? Again, you aren't being honest at this point of the discussion. Because you haven't tossed anyone out the church doors if they haven't obeyed. But this is getting interesting. So, please I'm eager to learn. How many times does a person think devious thoughts before you throw them out the door? Hello?

Originally Posted by Aquila

You guys insist on a woman wearing pants being an abomination, but apparently that doesn't mean much to you. You handle the issue as though it is simply a modesty issue.

I handle it like any other on the LIST I gave YOU.

How about jelling it out champ?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Like I said before, their are clubs and an entire subculture of abominable perversion and debauchery in like kind to that practice seen among the Canaanites. That is what Deuteronomy 22:5 is addressing.

Oh, this is good. Where is the word CANAANITES in the verse?

Originally Posted by Aquila

But hey, if you insist on applying the verse to pants, it really doesn't matter, because ultimately you'll only address a woman wearing pants as we do, as a modesty issue that one will indeed mature into.

We both land in the same place.

Sadly, "we" both don't land in the same place.

You're a mess.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Ndavid and Aquila condemn me for not being a jerk and condemning people before God has a chance to work in their lives.

I guess the prophets were all a bunch of jerks. The Apostles ... jerks. JESUS ... you said it. Jonathan Edwards and other ministers throughout history who have stood up to sin and warned of coming judgment -- all a bunch of JERKS!

No, I'm not condemning you for not being a "jerk." Stop whining and pretending to be a victim. You can stand against sin and warn of coming judgment and not be a jerk. It is possible.

Originally Posted by Pliny

You decide. Is there such a thing as newborn Christians and mature Christians? I believe so. Do people “grow” in the grace and admonition of God? Peter believed so.
(2Pe 3:18 ESV) But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Sure there are newborn Christians and mature Christians, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is your two different standards of sin for them. Sin is sin is sin. There is not a sin for newborns and sin for mature Christians. Sin is sin, regardless of how long one has been in church.

Originally Posted by Pliny

Jesus gave Pastors and teacher for helping saints to grow.
(Eph 4:11 ESV) And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers,
(Eph 4:12 ESV) to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
Apparently, NDavid and Aquila would be happier if a pastor did not try to help people. Instead they would rather the pastor be a jerk.

No, not true. Why does standing against sin and warning against coming judgment make one a jerk in your eyes? Seriously, you have issues if that's what you really believe. As stated previously, all the prophets, Apostles, Jesus Himself and ministers throughout the ages stood against sin and warned of coming judgment.

Are they all jerks, Pliny?

If you really believe one is a jerk for calling sin "sin" and warning of coming judgment, you shouldn't be a minister. Sorrynotsorry.

[Aquila]

This has been a lively discussion. Here's what I'm walking away with.

- I have a better understanding as to why some folk think that Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily about pants. I disagree, but I do understand the position better.

- I've come to realize that to some an abomination isn't as serious as the Bible makes it sound.

- I've come to realize that there is a difference in what repentance means.

- I've also come to understand that regardless of one's views on Deuteronomy 22:5, they will still apply the text as a modesty issue, not as an abomination issue.

- I've also come to understand that disfellowshipping as a form of church discipline is actually disdained by conservatives, even though it is a prescribed form of church discipline in the Scriptures.

All the bluster is really for nothing. Those who preach that pants are an abomination will still approach the issue as though it is only a modesty issue that one must grow and spiritually mature into. They do not demand nor require "repentance" from what they believe is an abomination. According to them, one simply matures out of their abominations.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

This has been a lively discussion. Here's what I'm walking away with.

- I have a better understanding as to why some folk think that Deuteronomy 22:5 is primarily about pants. I disagree, but I do understand the position better.

- I've come to realize that to some an abomination isn't as serious as the Bible makes it sound.

- I've come to realize that there is a difference in what repentance means.

- I've also come to understand that regardless of one's views on Deuteronomy 22:5, they will still apply the text as a modesty issue, not as an abomination issue.

- I've also come to understand that disfellowshipping as a form of church discipline is actually disdained by conservatives, even though it is a prescribed form of church discipline in the Scriptures.

All the bluster is really for nothing. Those who preach that pants are an abomination will still approach the issue as though it is only a modesty issue that one must grow and spiritually mature into. They do not demand nor require "repentance" from what they believe is an abomination. According to them, one simply matures out of their abominations.

This is a broad brush. actually, some do believe pants will send you to hell, some will disfellowship you for sin, I seen it done.

I spend the first years of my walk with God in hell fire church where pants and even a beard was a heaven/hell issue.

Funny timing, this morning I saw a facebook post that included a pic of my first pastor's wife in a pair of pants.

This morning I worked out at home in a pair of yoga pants, but I will change into a dress to head for work.

And BTW, I'm not surrendering my Glock, fyi.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

This is a broad brush. actually, some do believe pants will send you to hell, some will disfellowship you for sin, I seen it done.

I spend the first years of my walk with God in hell fire church where pants and even a beard was a heaven/hell issue.

Funny timing, this morning I saw a facebook post that included a pic of my first pastor's wife in a pair of pants.

This morning I worked out at home in a pair of yoga pants, but I will change into a dress to head for work.

And BTW, I'm not surrendering my Glock, fyi.

I know what it's like. The church I spent my first years in was a hellfire and brimstone church where nearly anything and everything would send you to Hell. When it came to pants, pants on women were an "abomination" and to die without having repented of wearing them was certain damnation. Beards, jewelry, hair, television, etc. were all heaven/hell issues. He ran a tight ship. And he truly believed what he preached.

I've come to a different understanding. I believe that pants are a modesty issue. Most pants are immodest unless one wears a top long enough to cover their hips and bottom. In our fellowship we encourage dresses and skirts, but we do not condemn women who are not ready for that level of modesty. Perhaps if we viewed pants on a woman as being an abomination, we'd be more strict on it. But we don't. So, we don't disfellowship or shun women over pants, hair, makeup, jewelry, or the like. We believe that as one matures in Christ they will grow in modesty and holiness.

We have a process in which if a person is engaged in continued sin the elders talk with the person and try to determine if it is due to a lack of understanding, a different interpretation, a circumstantial issue, or willful rebellion. If it is determined that a person is actually in willful rebellion we move to disfellowship. We're a house church, so when we disfellowship we inform the person that while we love them and desire to worship with them, they are no longer welcome in our gatherings until they can demonstrate that they have repented of the sin.

Many people call us "liberal" but in truth, we're actually moderates.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, you lost the argument.

How did I lose the argument when at the end of the day it is you who treats what you believe to be an "abomination" as merely a modesty issue as we do???

After all the wrangling over the Greek, the Hebrew, the culture, the customs, etc... your approach is no different than ours. Applied theology is where the war is won.

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I know what it's like. The church I spent my first years in was a hellfire and brimstone church where nearly anything and everything would send you to Hell. When it came to pants, pants on women were an "abomination" and to die without having repented of wearing them was certain damnation. Beards, jewelry, hair, television, etc. were all heaven/hell issues. He ran a tight ship. And he truly believed what he preached.

I've come to a different understanding. I believe that pants are a modesty issue. Most pants are immodest unless one wears a top long enough to cover their hips and bottom. In our fellowship we encourage dresses and skirts, but we do not condemn women who are not ready for that level of modesty. Perhaps if we viewed pants on a woman as being an abomination, we'd be more strict on it. But we don't. So, we don't disfellowship or shun women over pants, hair, makeup, jewelry, or the like. We believe that as one matures in Christ they will grow in modesty and holiness.

We have a process in which if a person is engaged in continued sin the elders talk with the person and try to determine if it is due to a lack of understanding, a different interpretation, a circumstantial issue, or willful rebellion. If it is determined that a person is actually in willful rebellion we move to disfellowship. We're a house church, so when we disfellowship we inform the person that while we love them and desire to worship with them, they are no longer welcome in our gatherings until they can demonstrate that they have repented of the sin.

Many people call us "liberal" but in truth, we're actually moderates.

Aquila
I question even this reasoning. From my studies I believe that what others are calling pants were in fact underclothes, that when Deut. 22:5 was written both men and women wore robes without anything under them in the way of breeches. That God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest for the purpose he directed in
Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exo 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

In Exodus 20 God is instruction his people on offering a sacrifice on an alter, and commands that they are not to go up steps when offering a sacrifice, that their nakedness be not discovered. The point being that everyone wore robes without underwear if you please.

The question I ask is if God had the priest wear underwear to cover their nakedness at certain times, why is it wrong for a women. Follow that with men have taken off their robes and now walk around in long underwear, albeit we now call them pants. But if it is ok for a man to wear underwear as common attire why do we not give a women the same latitude?

We say it is immodest, if it is immodest than so is a man walking around in a pair of pants instead of a robe!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Aquila
I question even this reasoning. From my studies I believe that what others are calling pants were in fact underclothes, that when Deut. 22:5 was written both men and women wore robes without anything under them in the way of breeches. That God instructed Moses to make breeches for the priest for the purpose he directed in
Exo 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:
Exo 28:43 And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him.

In Exodus 20 God is instruction his people on offering a sacrifice on an alter, and commands that they are not to go up steps when offering a sacrifice, that their nakedness be not discovered. The point being that everyone wore robes without underwear if you please.

The question I ask is if God had the priest wear underwear to cover their nakedness at certain times, why is it wrong for a women. Follow that with men have taken off their robes and now walk around in long underwear, albeit we now call them pants. But if it is ok for a man to wear underwear as common attire why do we not give a women the same latitude?

We say it is immodest, if it is immodest than so is a man walking around in a pair of pants instead of a robe!

I believe that some male attire is also immodest.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe that some male attire is also immodest.

Skinny jeans. Why? Just why, guys?

Doesn't it hurt?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by n david

Skinny jeans. Why? Just why, guys?

Doesn't it hurt?

See through shirts, muscle shirts, tight form-fitting pants. Those sorts of things.

Another aspect of modesty is also extravagance and cost.