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 ??
the holy ghost IS our rest !
So then there are 9 commandments now?
So there is an exception to one commandment (which I don't find in the Bible) but we still want to insist that Deut. 22:5 is speaking about women not wearing pants???
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
when is the last time you saw a man prancing around in a dress?
do you endorse that ???
There is a man who wears a robe who lives in the US. He's never been accused of cross-dressing, even though what he wears is close to women's attire.....according to standards believers.
There are other countries where men don't wear pants as part of their cultural attire. You go over there and preach this doctrine and they will reject it.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
You're either missing the point or evading the question. How long does something have to be a part of culture before it is acceptable? Years ago some believed wearing certain colors would send you to hell. Open toe shoes would send you to hell. Very few people believe that nonsense now. It is part of culture. THe question again, how long does something have to be ingrained in culture before it is accepted by apostolics.
To answer your question. A man prancing around in a dress violates Biblical PRINCPLE of gender separation.
Nobody has yet to address the point I've made a few times now that 400 years ago, when men started wearing pants, it was considered immodest and, in some areas, it was considered women's attire.
Looks like culture took care of that line of thinking, didn't it?
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
So there is an exception to one commandment (which I don't find in the Bible) but we still want to insist that Deut. 22:5 is speaking about women not wearing pants???
I have answered questions like this in the past, and have just about sworn off debating the specifics of standards with anybody anymore, because it is tiresome and frankly, boring, especially among those of us who have been doing this for a while.
In our culture, pants were exclusively men's apparel until there began to be a societal shift during WWII.
Then, with the rise of feminism, the separation between genders got even more fuzzy.
At some point, the Church has a responsibility to draw a line against the encroachment of an ever more degenerate and ungodly culture, and its pressure to erase godly principles.
The move toward women wearing pants is nothing more than a unisex movement, and besides that, the majority of women's pants are immodest.
The Church has drawn a line and applied that principle in this manner.
I don't think you were serious about the question, really, as you know many reasons why I or any other man wouldn't wear a pair of pants made for a woman.
It just looked like another "Gotcha!"
I don't think so.
What was the gender distinction when for thousands of years, men and women wore the same garment?
Until the last 400 years, men and women wore the same garment. How do you explain your post above with this fact?
I'm seriously wondering why people talk about the blurring of gender distinction lines because our culture allows for women in pants when it was that way with dress-like garments for thousands of years.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
I agree with you, and it is about intent. What is the reason for wearing certain clothes?
There are women all over the church on any given Saturday morning work day wearing their husbands old shirts while they go about their duties in a skirt...because they are admonished or believe they shouldn't wear men's clothing.
So would you wear certain articles of clothing with the intent of being or acting, or taking the place of a man? Probably not.
This is why the principal is SOOO important that women not wear the persona or nature of a man with the intent to exact his authority, position, or identity. This is what I believe Deut 22 is ALL about.
I completely agree. That verse isn't about the wearing of certain articles AT ALL, but the intention of wearing them.
If a woman is out in the garden wearing her husband's clothes because she doesn't have anything that she can afford to be ruined, she isn't violating anything Biblically. If she dresses in his clothes and adapts mannerisms of a man and goes out in public, well, I'd have to question her motives.
I worked in a store while going to nursing school a few years ago and there was a man who frequented the place. He was very kind, but sounded like a woman when he talked. I didn't think anything of it until I found out he was really a woman who's name is Shirley.
What was the gender distinction when for thousands of years, men and women wore the same garment?
Until the last 400 years, men and women wore the same garment. How do you explain your post above with this fact?
I'm seriously wondering why people talk about the blurring of gender distinction lines because our culture allows for women in pants when it was that way with dress-like garments for thousands of years.
I would also like to see some answers to some of these type questions.
But when it gets down to the nitty gritty "freakycons" don't want to answer. They would rather live in generalities and allow themselves to be defined by a 10 year period.
It's obvious, men don't believe that men wearing pants is immodest...and again, we have the benefit of having made the rules.
Besides, it would be difficult, even considering that our loins were wrapped beneath, to wear tunics and still have the ability to step over stadium seats, safely climb ladders, go hunting, etc...they don't prohibit us from singing in the choir, but they would for other manly stuff.
400 years ago, when pants for men first came on the scene, it was considered immodest attire and was rejected. It was also considered to be women's attire in some areas.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Linear Mode
