Bible Modesty - Part 1

[swaimj]

James, Sodom is an exception. The exception proved the rule. Sodom was so exceptionally wicked that God destroyed them outright. Has there been a society since Sodom that was so wicked that God destroyed them outright? No.

 

[James_Newman]

James, Sodom is an exception. The exception proved the rule. Sodom was so exceptionally wicked that God destroyed them outright. Has there been a society since Sodom that was so wicked that God destroyed them outright? No.

Is that the 'Sodom was the height of wickedness' defense? Don't forget that God destroyed the whole world by a flood. Sodom was wicked, and they were destroyed for their wickedness. But just because God hasn't destroyed us doesn't mean we are far behind Sodom in wickedness. God destroyed Sodom as an example.

2 Peter 2:5-6
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly;

Romans 9:29 And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

I wouldn't mistake God's longsuffering for His approval.

 

[James_Newman]

But still, where does the Bible condemn cross-dressing?

 

[swaimj]

Well, when this thread gets tired, perhaps you will demonstrate to me what plank of the communist manifesto has not been implemented in America.

Definitely, off topic, but I cannot resist the opportunity to demonstrate that the foolishness of your arguments are quite wide-ranging. Here is plank #1 of the Communist manifesto.

Abolition of all private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.

I sell cars for a living. I can assure you that there are many Americans who possess private property.

It does not sound as though you would agree with this defintion thus, what would you describe as being the characteristics of a female cross-dresser?

A female cross-dresser is characterized by her habit of dressing up in man's clothes with the purpose of passing herself off as a man.

 

[swaimj]

James, the destruction of the entire world by a flood preceeded the destruction of Sodom. The flood destroyed all mankind (except Noah). This restrained wickedness to the point that the next time God destroyed a society it was only one city, not the entire world. Since then, no entire city or society has been wiped out by God. So, Peter's word that Sodom is a warning to mankind of God's ability to destroy is a warning that man has, so far, heeded. We know that God will destroy this present earth and all unbelievers at a time in the future, but there is no indication that a society will be destroyed becasue of disobedience between now and then. It could happen, but given the effectiveness of the example of Sodom, such destruction does not seem likely.

 

[swaimj]

But still, where does the Bible condemn cross-dressing?

I'm pretty sure that it has been quoted on this thread. I don't know the reference, but the scriptures say that man is not to wear that which pertains to a woman. I'm surprised that you are not aware of this verse.

 

[James_Newman]

I'm pretty sure that it has been quoted on this thread. I don't know the reference, but the scriptures say that man is not to wear that which pertains to a woman. I'm surprised that you are not aware of this verse.

Oh, that verse. But as long as I get my dress from the mens dept, it's not cross dressing. Like Rufus said, if I put the zipper in the front then it will be a man dress.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Definitely, off topic, but I cannot resist the opportunity to demonstrate that the foolishness of your arguments are quite wide-ranging.
Here is plank #1 of the Communist manifesto. I sell cars for a living. I can assure you that there are many Americans who possess private property.

Tell that to the Kehlo family.

A female cross-dresser is characterized by her habit of dressing up in man's clothes with the purpose of passing herself off as a man.

What are men's clothes?

 

[Rufus_1611]

James, the destruction of the entire world by a flood preceeded the destruction of Sodom. The flood destroyed all mankind (except Noah). This restrained wickedness to the point that the next time God destroyed a society it was only one city, not the entire world. Since then, no entire city or society has been wiped out by God. So, Peter's word that Sodom is a warning to mankind of God's ability to destroy is a warning that man has, so far, heeded. We know that God will destroy this present earth and all unbelievers at a time in the future, but there is no indication that a society will be destroyed becasue of disobedience between now and then. It could happen, but given the effectiveness of the example of Sodom, such destruction does not seem likely.

Was New Orleans an act of Gaia?

 

[James_Newman]

Was New Orleans an act of Gaia?

What happened to Pompeii? I found this enlightening article on Wikipedia. I don't suggest viewing the examples.

Erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum was discovered in the ancient cities around the bay of Naples (particularly of Pompeii and Herculaneum) after extensive excavations began in the 18th century. The city was found to be full of erotic art and frescoes, symbols, and inscriptions regarded by its excavators as pornographic. Even many recovered household items had a sexual theme. The ubiquity of such imagery and items indicates that the sexual mores of the ancient Roman culture of the time were much more liberal than most present-day cultures, although much of what might seem to us to be erotic imagery (eg oversized phalluses) was in fact fertility-imagery. This clash of cultures led to an unknown number of discoveries being hidden away again. For example, a wall fresco which depicted Priapus, the ancient god of sex and fertility, with his extremely enlarged penis, was covered with plaster (and, as Schefold explains (p. 134), even the older reproduction below was locked away "out of prudishness" and only opened on request) and only rediscovered in 1998 due to rainfall [1].

 

[tinytim]

We've already had this discussion Tiny. For your edification, I will retract the word Laodicean and will ask that lukewarm be used instead.

oops my bad... I forgot who I had discussed this with... I am getting forgetful with age....:BangHead: :BangHead:

But seriously, are you sayin that all churches that allow women to wear pants are lukewarm.?..

Surely you know that that is too broad.

And of course, I am sure you know some that are lukewarm that make their women wear pants.

Lukewarmness deals with the heart, not what is on the legs.

 

[Rufus_1611]

oops my bad... I forgot who I had discussed this with... I am getting forgetful with age....:BangHead: :BangHead:

But seriously, are you sayin that all churches that allow women to wear pants are lukewarm.?

It is a potential attribute of a lukewarm attitude towards God's instruction for the adornment and separation of His people.

Surely you know that that is too broad.

Or narrow depending on the point of view.

Lukewarmness deals with the heart, not what is on the legs.

What is on the legs is an outward expression of what is in the heart.

 

[swaimj]

Replies to Rufus

Tell that to the Kehlo family.

Rufus, do you own any private property?

Was New Orleans an act of Gaia?[/QUOTE] The flood was an act of God's judgement. I know this because the scriptures say it was. The destruction of Sodom was an act of God's judgement. I know this because the Bible says it was. The future destruction will be an act of divine judgement. The bible says so. I know of know scriptural commentary of the reasons for the destruction of New Orleans or Pompei, so I am not going to jump to conclusions. If you want to declare that it was, go ahead, but you cannot say that it was based upon a biblical statement.

What are men's clothes?

What were men's clothes and what were women's clothes at the time that command was given?

And James

Oh, that verse. But as long as I get my dress from the mens dept, it's not cross dressing.

Suit yourself James, but I think you'd be sinning.

 

[James_Newman]

And James Suit yourself James, but I think you'd be sinning.

Would I be more or less sinning than the women who put on pants?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Replies to Rufus
Rufus, do you own any private property?

No. I have a house owned by a bank. I am granted use of that house so long as I pay the mortgage and pay property taxes. If I pay off the mortgage and I choose to no longer support state run schools and the state sponsored religion of secular humanism, then the state takes my property. If the state decides they want to use this property for an international freeway system run by foreign corporations as evidenced by the TransTexasCorridor, then they will confiscate the property at a price that they determine. If they decide that they can use this property to a greater commercial advantage as evidenced in the Kehlo case, they can also confiscate the property. If this topic is important to you, please start a new thread and we can hash it out.

Was New Orleans an act of Gaia?[/QUOTE] The flood was an act of God's judgement. I know this because the scriptures say it was. The destruction of Sodom was an act of God's judgement. I know this because the Bible says it was. The future destruction will be an act of divine judgement. The bible says so. I know of know scriptural commentary of the reasons for the destruction of New Orleans or Pompei, so I am not going to jump to conclusions. If you want to declare that it was, go ahead, but you cannot say that it was based upon a biblical statement.

Fair enough.

 

[swaimj]

James, who asked:

Would I be more or less sinning than the women who put on pants?

Yes. In our culture, dresses are for women exclusively. Now in some cultures you could wear a garment much like a skirt that would not be sinful because it is viewed as masculine in the culture.

These matters of dress are not matters of absolutes. The Bible is not a Sears catalog that shows us pictures and designs of what people should wear. It is a book that gives us broad priciples that must be applied in a given culture. The principles are modesty and distinctiveness between male and female. But what is manly and what is feminine can differ depending upon the cultural context.

 

[James_Newman]

James, who asked: Yes. In our culture, dresses are for women exclusively. Now in some cultures you could wear a garment much like a skirt that would not be sinful because it is viewed as masculine in the culture.

These matters of dress are not matters of absolutes. The Bible is not a Sears catalog that shows us pictures and designs of what people should wear. It is a book that gives us broad priciples that must be applied in a given culture. The principles are modesty and distinctiveness between male and female. But what is manly and what is feminine can differ depending upon the cultural context.

So the guys in skirts are just a little ahead of their time. Pants used to be viewed as strictly masculine. Some women took the initiative to start wearing them and in time they became accepted and these women are lauded as heroes by pants wearing women everywhere. Even though, by your estimation, going against the cultural norm for gender appropriate dress would be sin. So aren't these sinners in skirts just the dress-reform heroes of tomorrow? Or do we draw a line in the sand now?

 

[swaimj]

Pants used to be viewed as strictly masculine. Some women took the initiative to start wearing them and in time they became accepted and these women are lauded as heroes by pants wearing women everywhere.

James, three question for you:
'
1. When were pants viewed as strictly masculine?

2. Who made the rule that they are strictly masculine?

3. When did women start to wear pants and why did they start?

 

[James_Newman]

James, three question for you:
'
1. When were pants viewed as strictly masculine?

2. Who made the rule that they are strictly masculine?

3. When did women start to wear pants and why did they start?

Are we going to debate history now?

 

[James_Newman]

From Wikipedia

Trousers (or pants in Canada, South Africa and the U.S., and sometimes called slacks or breeches — often pronounced /bɹɪtʃɪz/ — in more old-fashioned usage) is an item of clothing worn on the lower part of the body, covering both legs separately (rather than with cloth stretching across both as in skirts and dresses). Historically, as for the West, trousers have been the standard lower-body clothing item for males since the 16th century; by the late 20th century, they had become extremely prevalent for females as well.

Although trousers for women did not become fashion items until the later 20th century, women began wearing men's trousers (suitably altered) for outdoor work a hundred years earlier.
The Wigan pit brow girls scandalized Victorian society by wearing trousers for their dangerous work in the coal mines. They wore skirts over their trousers, rolled up to the waist to keep them out of the way.
Women working the ranches of the 19th century American West also wore trousers for riding, and in the early 20th century aviatrices and other working women often wore trousers. Actresses Marlene Dietrich and Katharine Hepburn were often photographed in trousers from the 1930s and helped make trousers acceptable for women. During World War II, women working in factories and doing other forms of "men's work" on war service wore trousers when the work demanded it, and in the post-war era trousers became acceptable casual wear for gardening, the beach, and other leisure pursuits.