Clothing

[MMDad]

if I had my way, most women wouldn't wear any clothes at all... The church of the Bobvidians.. leave your dresses at the door!

You need to stand at the front door of Walmart sometime and think about what it would look like in your Bobvidian church. It'll also remove any Gynocologist fantasies you may have.

 

[itsbob]

You need to stand at the front door of Walmart sometime and think about what it would look like in your Bobvidian church. It'll also remove any Gynocologist fantasies you may have.

That's why I said most and not ALL!!

 

[BadGirl]

if I had my way, most women wouldn't wear any clothes at all... The church of the Bobvidians.. leave your dresses at the door!

:shrug: What, so YOU can wear them?

 

[itsbob]

:shrug: What, so YOU can wear them?

If that's what turns you on baby!!

 

[vraiblonde]

I still don't see what the problem is?

No problem at all - you asked a question and I was just butting in to tell you that quoting OT law with regard to modern Christianity isn't going to get you the answer you're looking for.

 

[slotted]

No problem at all - you asked a question and I was just butting in to tell you that quoting OT law with regard to modern Christianity isn't going to get you the answer you're looking for.

Please see..........

I never said that Christians were bound by the laws, but just because one is saved, does not exempt them from the laws that God has put in place. God is said to be immutable, therefore what he finds abominable in the old testament, he still finds abominable in the new testament, the only difference now, is that one's salvation isn't dependent upon keeping the law. I know of churches that teach women should only wear dresses mainly based upon OT teachings. Do these churches teach that you are damned to hell if you don't obey this? For the most part, no. But the churches that teach this infer that you are not right with God if you don't follow this teaching. Make sense?

 

[vraiblonde]

Make sense?

No. You are talking about Mosaic Law, with regard to the Old Testament. Most Christians do not follow Mosaic Law - that's Orthodox Jews you're thinking of.

But the churches that teach this infer that you are not right with God if you don't follow this teaching.

If you will notice, the various Christian denominations ALL teach variations on the theme. This is why someone might worship as an Episcopalian, as opposed to Baptist or Catholic or Jehovah's Witness. Different denominations for different beliefs. And, surprise surprise, they ALL think they are the ones that are doing it right. Otherwise (think about it) they wouldn't be doing it that way, now would they?

With regard to Christian fundamentalists, they take the NT literally, not necessarily the OT.

So you may actually get someone on here to answer your original question about women in pants, but it's unlikely because I suspect there aren't many Orthodox Jews hanging around here. But I could be wrong.

 

[slotted]

If you will notice, the various Christian denominations ALL teach variations on the theme. This is why someone might worship as an Episcopalian, as opposed to Baptist or Catholic or Jehovah's Witness. Different denominations for different beliefs. And, surprise surprise, they ALL think they are the ones that are doing it right.

And some teach that pants on women is wrong. I could point you towards some if you like. Just like some teach going to the movies is sinful, along with watching hellywood on t.v., playing cards, dancing, etc, etc. It's called legalism and there are plenty of fundies out there teaching/preaching it.

With regard to Christian fundamentalists, they take the NT literally, not necessarily the OT.

I have yet to meet a fundy that doesn't take the OT literally.

So you may actually get someone on here to answer your original question about women in pants, but it's unlikely because I suspect there aren't many Orthodox Jews hanging around here. But I could be wrong.

I think it's more unlikely because they don't want to admit that they have such kooky beliefs and know they don't have a leg to stand on defending it.

 

[HollowSoul]

:shrug: Slotted is the only one in here wanting someone to respond so he can tell them they're wrong. And he openly admitted that.

And to JWWB: Slotted has never asked a single religion question with hopes of getting an honest answer. All he has EVER wanted to do was play "gotcha" - asks question in hopes that some poor unsuspecting soul will answer, so he can then tell them what fools they are.

Actually to be truthfull (and i'm not try'n to pick a fight because it's not worth it)
It posters such as 2A/Railroad/ect. that dominate the religious forums.
I was allways led to believe that the definition of forum meant "open discussion" not "one sided opinionisim" (not sure if thats a word?)
Anywhoo if you look over previous threads in this "forum" you will CLEARLY see that ANY other opinion that either oposes or questions is dealt with like a roach crawling across the floor, (it's squashed and treated an inferior)
All i'm saying...or trying to say...is that the belief of god, has the right in a "forum" atmosphere, to be questioned allong with idolized.
Hypothetically, if someone were to come here and post something from Anton LaVey or anything from a satanists standpoint (i am not a satanist BTW)
It would not suprise me if the post was quickly deleted and the poster put in timeout..

 

[Steve]

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so [are] abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Seems to me that when this passage was written, even men didn't wear pants. Everyone wore some form and style of robes. Certainly men and women wore different styles to distinguish male from female. This male/female apparel difference is still quite visible today, regardless of whether the garment in question is pants, kilts/skirts, robes, etc.

Let's put a human spin on the possible reasons for Deut. 22:5.

Imagine you're in the Middle East circa 2000 B.C. It is already unlawful under God for a man to lay hands upon a woman who is not his wife. Thus is created a cunning opportunity to diguise any male soldier as a woman to circumvent security. Having been surprised by this before, now they include this passage in the Code of Law, knowing that fear of God's wrath would probably serve as great incentive for this sort of diguise to be used.

This is just a suggestion, not an historical account, mind you. Just something to think about. In Genesis, when God told Adam and Eve to leave Eden and cover themselves out of shame, he didn't tell them how to cover themselves, did he? That came late in Deut. :shrug:

 

[vraiblonde]

It would not suprise me if the post was quickly deleted and the poster put in timeout..

Not by me, it wouldn't. I dig on open discussion and have no religion of my own to tout. But I promised David I would keep the Religion forum bash-free, so that's where I'm at. Post your beliefs, but don't poke fun at the beliefs of others.

Although, now that I think about it, you're probably right about the Anton LeVey quotes. I wouldn't put them in timeout, but might delete the post. However, Wiccans have been on here and there doesn't seem to have been a problem with them. :shrug:

Slotted's only purpose in here is to tell Christians that what they believe is wrong. He doesn't ever say what he thinks is right, just that Christians are wrong. That's not much of a discussion, nor is it in line with the bash-free environment we're trying to have in here.

 

[HollowSoul]

Slotted's only purpose in here is to tell Christians that what they believe is wrong. He doesn't ever say what he thinks is right, just that Christians are wrong. That's not much of a discussion, nor is it in line with the bash-free environment we're trying to have in here.

Ahhhh but there is the paradox (unless i'm seeing something different)
a completely biased individual would also percieve the posts of devout christians/bible thumpers in this forum as their only purpose is to tell others that they are wrong.
It really doesn't matter to me, my vote is to believe whatever you want to believe. but all sides of the story need to be discussed, not just one

 

[Dougstermd]

Ahhhh but there is the paradox (unless i'm seeing something different)
a completely biased individual would also percieve the posts of devout christians/bible thumpers in this forum as their only purpose is to tell others that they are wrong.
It really doesn't matter to me, my vote is to believe whatever you want to believe. but all sides of the story need to be discussed, not just one

That is just what I was thinking.

 

[Larry Gude]

And to that I say...

You need to stand at the front door of Walmart sometime and think about what it would look like in your Bobvidian church. It'll also remove any Gynocologist fantasies you may have.

...ahmen brother!

 

[Larry Gude]

What is taught and what actually happens...

is that one's salvation isn't dependent upon keeping the law

...is that, in the end, God is your (the) judge, yes?

I mean, teachings are from, whether they be that you WILL go to hell for X or MIGHT, the word of man teaching to you the WORD as he understands it, right?

And at the end, all teachings agree that it is His will, His judgement as to whether you go to hell for wearing pants or not, yes?

Therefore if we all agree that what you are taught comes from man as he has learned the Word and we all agree that man is imperfect and we all agree that final judgement is up to the Lord then we can all agree that He will very likely pass His judgment on an individual based on that individual as a whole and not necessarily for specific violations per se of what you were taught as THE Word of God seeings how you were taught by an imperfect creature; man.

Perhaps it is silly to teach things as absolutes but that is imperfect mans job as willed by the Father, to teach as best he, man, can. It would, however, be far sillier, having accepted that man, in his limited capacity, must teach and can only teach as he understands it, to then somehow presume that the Lord is bound in his actions by the word of man, yes?

In other words, though the rules be what they are, when it comes to judgment...

Father knows best.