im no hardliner by any stretch and no offense, but the soft suited willow creek style gospel that panders to sinners so not to offend them is not working out. what we need is a real revival in america period (even in pentecost!) and with i believe will come real conviction including girls not wanting to wear sudective or male clothing and men will take their rightful places as well
In the bump, I was referring to this post. And I asked what would real revival look like, in your view? And what would the results of that revival look like six months later? Just curious as to what would constitute real revival to you, it is not a trap or trick question.
__________________ For it is written, "As I live, says the Lord every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. (Romans 14:11- NASB)
Duet 22:5 is a Moral Law the others are civil and ceremonial laws for the Israeli people.
moral laws such as the 10 commandments AND scriptures that realte to God's moral standards never change. cross dressing and gender distiction is one of them. God is trying to protect us from self destruction. isn't that easy to see or not ?
But why isn't the 'moral law' as you call it in Deut 22:5 mentioned elsewhere in scripture like the other laws you cover above?
BTW, remembering the Sabbath has sure changed a lot since Biblical days! In fact, it's no longer followed like it was commanded. It was to be a day of rest, but who does that anymore?
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
No one can deny you look like a lady in your avitar. What's funny is if you were wearing a pair of pants there are people who would say you look like a man. There more to looking like a lady than what she wear from the waist down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne
LCS, do you believe that God can give personal convictions to an individual but not to another?
I'm just trying to figure out how you feel that since God convicted you personally, that means what you are convicted of goes for everyone else.
Perhaps there was a reason why God convicted you personally, especially at such a young age. Only God knows if you would have been a kind of person who would have been immodest, promiscuous, and perhaps pregnant by 16 because of your dress behavior.
No, that doesn't happen to every woman who wears pants or dresses immodestly, but I'm just throwing out a possibility.
I know people who are convicted against board games, cards, dice, and even eating white bread, but that doesn't mean that those things are wrong for everyone, right?
Just trying to understand you better. I respect your beliefs, so please don't take offense or think I'm trying to change them.
No one can deny you look like a lady in your avitar. What's funny is if you were wearing a pair of pants there are people who would say you look like a man. There more to looking like a lady than what she wear from the waist down.
Thanks for your kind comments.
What gets me is how people think the Bible defines men's and women's apparel as being whatever is worn from the waist down and that the Bible was written at a time when both men and women wore robes. So how is that verse speaking about women wearing pants when NOBODY wore pants in those days?
History also shows that women in the 4th century were the first to wear pants, and that men started wearing them 400 years ago, they were not only considered immodest for men, but they were also considered women's apparel!
My, how times have changed....
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Exactly Sherri... clearly logical thinking from someone who obviously has raised a teen girl. There are quite enough rules out there for the girls without adding another just because it isn't something the pastor's wife or adults might wear.
I actually think the leggings are modest and this winter they gave my girls some additional warmth... and hey, they were actually in style and within standard guidelines. They are cute when matched with tops and cute little flats that match.
And to all of you griping about them... they are often called footless tights that can be bought in any department store. Some are called leggings.. but what is the difference.
My daughter wore a pair under a jean skirt to the IN Holiday Youth convention day service... she wasn't alone... others did too.. and you should have seen the groups of girls who stood around with condemning, judgemental attitudes who obviously come from "stricter more holy" churches (or so they thought) Those girls were down right rude to the ones who wore the leggins... I watched as they stood and stared at my daughter from her shoes up to her top with contemp that they were not hiding. I couldn't get over how ugly the girls were in spirit... I stood back and watched them. I told my sister who was with me that they will never see their attitudes as sin... sad... really sad. Elaine asked me at one point what was their problem? I told her it was the leggins.. She was blown away by the actions of others and had no clue.
Foreverblessed,
I read this post this morning and had it on my mind today.
What IF your daughters were wrong in wearing the leggings? What IF they were wrong?
How in the world could they be brought closer to the Lord when apparently they are condemned already?
I know kids will be kids and girls will be girls, but WHEN are we going to teach our young people to "look beyond the fault and see the need"? Have we focused so much on clothing that it is all we see anymore?
We, who have "the love shed abroad in our hearts BY THE HOLY GHOST" should be the very ones to extend love and SHOULD be taking things to God in prayer, with sincerity, in order to see how marvelous He is to love and answer our prayers to work in the lives of those that we are SUPPOSE to love!
I wonder how many beautiful miracles we would see if we would take it to the Lord in prayer.
Nice cutting and pasting, but it didn't deal with the point brought up by Thad.
Hebrew for the word translated 'garment
Let's look at the Hebrew word that 'garment' is translated from: 8071 simlah (sim-law'); Strong says: "perhaps by permutation for the feminine of 5566 (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress."
Strong uses above (dress), saying that the word in this passage teaches that the dress is female attire. They overlook the fact that Strong goes on to say... "especially a mantle: apparel, cloth (-es, -ing), garment, raiment. comp.
Strong says the majority of times it is translated raiment, clothes and garment (as it is here in Deuteronomy 22:5 in the KJV). Not once is it translated into the English word 'dress'. Rather similar to when we say men and women's dress sense, we are not talking about only female attire. The word means clothes, not dresses!
Some pastor teach the passage is specifically prohibiting women wearing men's armour, but whether it's apparel or armour there is no teaching here that pants are for men only.
LAST, DUET 22: 5 IS NOT ABOUT PANTS. You really do teach another gospel~ Nice try Coon !
In the bump, I was referring to this post. And I asked what would real revival look like, in your view? And what would the results of that revival look like six months later? Just curious as to what would constitute real revival to you, it is not a trap or trick question.
holy ghost out pouring like day of pentecost, A great national awakening & repentance, azusa street, back to holiness, godly living and modest apparal.Even by the world' standards, many comment that the dress of today's youth has stooped to an all time new low
the true unpresented move of God can go on for Years
What gets me is how people think the Bible defines men's and women's apparel as being whatever is worn from the waist down and that the Bible was written at a time when both men and women wore robes. So how is that verse speaking about women wearing pants when NOBODY wore pants in those days?
History also shows that women in the 4th century were the first to wear pants, and that men started wearing them 400 years ago, they were not only considered immodest for men, but they were also considered women's apparel!
My, how times have changed....
Amen HeavenlyOne~
There are many more Bible verses for men wearing skirts than women wearing them! The Bible speaks of men's skirts twelve times: (Dt 22:30, Dt 27:20, Ru 3:9, 1 Sa 15:27, 1 Sa 24:4, 1 Sa 24:5, 1 Sa 24:11, 1 Sa 24:11, Eze 16:8, Hag 2:12, Hag 2:12, and Zec 8:23).
But why isn't the 'moral law' as you call it in Deut 22:5 mentioned elsewhere in scripture like the other laws you cover above?
BTW, remembering the Sabbath has sure changed a lot since Biblical days! In fact, it's no longer followed like it was commanded. It was to be a day of rest, but who does that anymore?
what other laws did i cover? the 10 commandments ?
as far as the sabbath, that's a no-brainer and you know that. Jesus said he was the Lord of the sabbath who fulfilled it. Paul said judge No man according to days . so we know that the sabbath is the one exception of the 10 that has been done away with for the gentiles unless you are a sabbath believer ??
There are many more Bible verses for men wearing skirts than women wearing them! The Bible speaks of men's skirts twelve times: (Dt 22:30, Dt 27:20, Ru 3:9, 1 Sa 15:27, 1 Sa 24:4, 1 Sa 24:5, 1 Sa 24:11, 1 Sa 24:11, Eze 16:8, Hag 2:12, Hag 2:12, and Zec 8:23).
gender distinction is accoding to culture. even in scotland, the men only wear a kilt for ceremonial purposes Not for everyday attire. a cultural norm for a special day.
She was blown away by the actions of others and had no clue.
Linear Mode
