Revisiting the "PANTS" Issue

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by StMark

If we can Do away with Duet 22 then whose to say we can do away with the scripture in Lev. that says that lying with man and man is an abomination???

Isn't there a difference between the civil laws of Israel and moral laws that are timeless ??


.

It is proper interpretation of Scripture. How did Isreal apply this teaching that was given to them. They both wore robes. The differences were that the women dressed in a more ortamental style -- but it was still the same basic robe. The same is true today -- women wear pants like men and they have differences. The principle was not to confuse the sexes.

My wife does not do away with that principle. My wife does not seek to look like a man.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by cneasttx

Where did you read this?

http://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2008/0...tian-friendly/

[My Own Eyes]

Originally Posted by StMark

and this ought to give all the XPentecostals pause for thought.

I just read today where TD Jakes is meeting with soul force (gay christian group) to see if they have common ground.

20 years ago he was still preaching standards in Apalchia

The thought that I have when I pause is "Yay! for Him"

[SDG]

Originally Posted by StMark

Dan, aren't we suppose to Rightly divide the Old testament ?

Civil Law, Ceremonial Law, Moral Law ??? If we do away with all of the OT then that would have to include the 10 commandments

Are you for real, Mark ... now we must obey all OT commandments ...???

Think about what you just said.

I understand that your tradition and/or conviction is important to you ...

Subjugating women to a a Norman Rockwell painting that you mistake for God's Holiness is not bible .... it's extrabiblical.

You have no bible for your pants position ... none ... there .... it is not God's Word, Mark. It's in your head.

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by StMark

and this ought to give all the XPentecostals pause for thought.

I just read today where TD Jakes is meeting with soul force (gay christian group) to see if they have common ground.

20 years ago he was still preaching standards in Apalchia

This can't be proved as a cause and effect relationship and I doubt that there is a strong correlation. It may be that both of these things have/are happening but I think the latter deals with the issue of the heart.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

It is proper interpretation of Scripture. How did Isreal apply this teaching that was given to them. They both wore robes. The differences were that the women dressed in a more ortamental style -- but it was still the same basic robe. The same is true today -- women wear pants like men and they have differences. The principle was not to confuse the sexes.

My wife does not do away with that principle. My wife does not seek to look like a man.

When one examines the fact that in OT times they both wore the same basic garb w/ gender distinctions ... the ultracon argument falls apart.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Are you for real, Mark ... now we must obey all OT commandments ...???

Think about what you just said.

I understand that your tradition and/or conviction is important to you ...

Subjugating women to a a Norman Rockwell painting that you mistake for God's Holiness is not bible .... it's extrabiblical.

You have no bible for your pants position ... none ... there it is not God's Word.

No Dan, I'm only trying to have a discussion and instead you and the others always have to lower yourself to putdowns. Why ????

[SDG]

Originally Posted by StMark

No Dan, I'm only trying to have a discussion and instead you and the others always have to lower yourself to putdowns. Why ????

Bro ... where's the put down ...

I could find it insulting that somehow you've equated that those who don't obey Deut 22 as you have interpreted matters well just be gay or support homosexuality ...

There's enough in your posts to support this implication ...

And I'm not having a cow.

[StMark]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Bro ... where's the put down ...

I could find it insulting that somehow you've equated that those who don't obey Deut 22 as you have interpreted matters well just be gay or support homosexuality ...

There's enough in your posts to support this implication ...

And I'm not having a cow.

No Amos said that and I said that should give us pause for thought

[SDG]

If we use your approach to accepting your interpretation to Deut. 22 then we must stone children who are disrespectful to their parents.

Sorry Mark ... there has to be a better way to substantiate your tradition.