Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Amanah]

this is off topic, but I love Apostolic Culture.

love the long hair and the dresses

[Evang.Benincasa]

Sadly that is just us.

The greater part of the population wants "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the Law." ~Aleister Crowley

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

how do you suggest we define gender distinction?

Well, gender distinction can vary to some degree by culture, but as many have pointed out, there are universal elements. One can be sure to maintain gender distinction with dresses and skirts for women and pants for men. We should never deny that. But while this model is feasible, it's very general. If we assume that women's pants pertain to a man, then men could freely wear pretty lady's jeans! LOL So there has to be some recognition of current norms.

For example,

In Scotland, a kilt is traditional male attire. So, with common sense we can say that a man wearing a kilt in Scotland, or while representing Scottish heritage or culture, wouldn't be a violation of gender norms. However, a man wearing a black leather skirt with high heels while on the town in Manhattan would. The biblical principle can be applied to all cultural norms, and calls attention to the intent of one's heart and actions.

It's simple, the cross dressing, drag queen, gender bending perversion is an abomination to God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

He posts that we shouldn't take our queues from culture, and then posts what about wearing a kilt?

Chris, you need help.

There is a difference between taking examples from a given culture to define a text and then applying those examples to one's practice... and taking principles from scripture and simply applying those in a given culture.

It's simple. The gender bending perversion of cross dressing shouldn't be found among God's people.

Do you apply the same logic to high heeled shoes and hosiery as you apply to trousers? Because if you did apply the interpretation consistently, you'd have to say that both high heels and hosiery are an abomination on a woman. Because both were originally designed by men for men, and worn throughout popular culture by men when they were created.

But, with my concept, we have no issues. It's common sense. Today, heels and hosiery are a woman's attire, even if they were originally designed for and worn by men.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Well, gender distinction can vary to some degree by culture, but as many have pointed out, there are universal elements. One can be sure to maintain gender distinction with dresses and skirts for women and pants for men. We should never deny that. But while this model is feasible, it's very general. If we assume that women's pants pertain to a man, then men could freely wear pretty lady's jeans! LOL So there has to be some recognition of current norms.

For example,

In Scotland, a kilt is traditional male attire. So, with common sense we can say that a man wearing a kilt in Scotland, or while representing Scottish heritage or culture, wouldn't be a violation of gender norms. However, a man wearing a black leather skirt with high heels while on the town in Manhattan would. The biblical principle can be applied to all cultural norms, and calls attention to the intent of one's heart and actions.

It's simple, the cross dressing, drag queen, gender bending perversion is an abomination to God.

So if men began to wear skirts just as women began wearing pants and the culture began to except it as normal, and then men skirts began to be produced for men and found in men sections at the store, is it no longer a sin because they were made for men? should we recognize the current norm if this ever happens? We cant keep moving the lines.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

There is a difference between taking examples from a given culture to define a text and then applying those examples to one's practice... and taking principles from scripture and simply applying those in a given culture.

The text is written in such a way as to make no doubt what they are saying. Hence the reason that men wear pants and women do not.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's simple. The gender bending perversion of cross dressing shouldn't be found among God's people.

How dangerous religion truly is. That someone can shapeshift so rapidly in and out of the religious beliefs in order to walk among the sheep.

[QUOTE=Aquila;1537555]
Do you apply the same logic to high heeled shoes and hosiery as you apply to trousers?

What is a high heel, and why is there hosiery?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Because if you did apply the interpretation consistently,

How ironic, one minute you are having intrusive thoughts which are akin to a car alarm going off? Then in another minute you are talking about taking pictures of tacos? Consistency Chris?

Go find a church and a pastor.

Originally Posted by Aquila

you'd have to say that both high heels and hosiery are an abomination on a woman. Because both were originally designed by men for men, and worn throughout popular culture by men when they were created.

No they weren't. Again, you can find what you want on the internet to prove your side, and I can prove my side. Chris, all you want to do is bring doubt to the weak, sick, and discouraged. The hair thread has varying views by different Apostolics. You know what is the difference? They are looking to kill the young.

Originally Posted by Aquila

But, with my concept, we have no issues. It's common sense. Today, heels and hosiery are a woman's attire, even if they were originally designed for and worn by men.

There you folks, that is what this is all about.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

So if men began to wear skirts just as women began wearing pants and the culture began to except it as normal, and then men skirts began to be produced for men and found in men sections at the store, is it no longer a sin because they were made for men? should we recognize the current norm if this ever happens? We cant keep moving the lines.

Good point.

I think purpose is a factor to consider. Would these "skirts" to serve some kind of purpose, or are they just the efforts of fashion designers to offer a new line of cross dressing? Intent should be discerned. Also, mere novelty of fashion and fad do not establish a cultural norm. I predict that fads will come and go. However, if something serves a purpose of some kind and endures for a generation or more, it begins to become more of a norm. So, while we'd do well to reject men's skirts... if they "catch on" and begin to endure for a generation or two, at some point, it they will be a norm, and people in our culture will see them no differently than an American "kilt" tradition.

We're already allowing something every day in our churches that would have been a scandal several hundred years ago. Let me illustrate this...

Let's say articles (A) and (B) were originally created for men and worn by men for several generations. And then culture begins a shift in style. As it does, men cease wearing (A) and (B) and women start wearing (A) and (B) to the point that it becomes a norm. Are (A) and (B) an abomination on a woman? Or has the shift in culture now allowed for women to wear (A) and (B)?

Please note, I speak of high heels and hosiery.

Think of T-shirts. They were originally designed for men too. But today, I've not heard of any churches that would condemn a woman for wearing a T-shirt.

[Aquila]

[QUOTE=Evang.Benincasa;1537559]The text is written in such a way as to make no doubt what they are saying. Hence the reason that men wear pants and women do not.



How dangerous religion truly is. That someone can shapeshift so rapidly in and out of the religious beliefs in order to walk among the sheep.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Do you apply the same logic to high heeled shoes and hosiery as you apply to trousers?

What is a high heel, and why is there hosiery?



How ironic, one minute you are having intrusive thoughts which are akin to a car alarm going off? Then in another minute you are talking about taking pictures of tacos? Consistency Chris?

Go find a church and a pastor.



No they weren't. Again, you can find what you want on the internet to prove your side, and I can prove my side. Chris, all you want to do is bring doubt to the weak, sick, and discouraged. The hair thread has varying views by different Apostolics. You know what is the difference? They are looking to kill the young.




There you folks, that is what this is all about.

The wise can see what offers common sense and balance, and what is purely rigid extremism. Allow them to examine the issue.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

So if men began to wear skirts just as women began wearing pants and the culture began to except it as normal, and then men skirts began to be produced for men and found in men sections at the store, is it no longer a sin because they were made for men? should we recognize the current norm if this ever happens? We cant keep moving the lines.

There you go, hence the young, the wounded, and the weak drink from the well. Yet, too late to they realize the poison. The history of fashion, cultures, and customs are those of the wealthy. Not too much of the commoners.

Chris, thinks he is clever when he brings up the chiffon gowns for men. How that would be acceptable in the eyes of God. It is a little levan which which spreads throughout. Until the whole is leaven.

Lipstick for men?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

There you go, hence the young, the wounded, and the weak drink from the well. Yet, too late to they realize the poison. The history of fashion, cultures, and customs are those of the wealthy. Not too much of the commoners.

Chris, thinks he is clever when he brings up the chiffon gowns for men. How that would be acceptable in the eyes of God. It is a little levan which which spreads throughout. Until the whole is leaven.

Lipstick for men?

Does your wife wear heels and hosiery?

Does she occasionally wear a T-shirt?

These items were originally worn by men. If you see no issue in her wearing these things, have you not already embraced lines that culture has moved?