Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Recommended Posts

On 9/9/2016 at 2:21 PM, HappyChristian said:

NN - I began with a book titled Manners and Customs of the Bible by James M. Freeman.

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I finally have this installed on my Bible Software. I couldn't find it in any of the extra sources (that I'm aware of) that provide modules for theWord. However, eSword has it available for download, and I was able to convert the eSword module over so that it works on theWord. 

Thanks again HC!

You're welcome! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2016 at 5:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

Yes. And they also create new names for themselves like Neptune or Aquarius or some other weird name (gotta quit hanging around Walmart so much...) - kinda reminds me of Hippies for some reason - and they wear make-up. Some wear it better than real women...even weirder!

So is it wrong to wear make-up too?

That might be opening another can of worms.... :D

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2016 at 2:06 PM, Ukulelemike said:

Ever notice the weird phenomenon, that when a 'transgender' woman (male to female) is 'transitioning', they wil go to wearing dresses almost exclusively? Like, they somehow naturally associate being a woman with wearing dresses? What's with that? 

I'm not sure anyone can realistically or logically make a solid biblical argument for or against anything on the basis of 'transgender' people's ability to know what is natural.....So to answer your question....I don't know how they do it.......definitely is weird.....then again I do not spend much time reading about their transitioning habits to know.....nor to I currently care to find out. So.....

Edited by John Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."

Indeed.  Although I myself do NOT believe (due to my above Biblical studies) that "pants-wear" is inherently "that which pertaineth unto a man" (as per Deuteronomy 22:5), and although I do NOT therefore believe that it is inherently sinful for a woman to wear "pants-wear," I DO believe that cultural realities SHOULD be factored into our decision concerning the matter.  Indeed, it has been a cultural reality for a past number of centuries (at least within European and American cultures) that "pants-wear" is "man's-wear," not "women's-wear.  No, this has NOT always been the case throughout world history and within every culture of the world.  However, it HAS been the case for numbers of centuries within the cultures in which we presently live.  (Note: Although I recognize that Wikipedia cannot be absolutely trusted for information, I do believe that the Wikipedia article on "Trousers" is a worthwhile read in relation to this matter, especially the sections on "History," "Society," and "Laws.")  Therefore, I believe that we SHOULD factor this cultural reality in our practice (at least, in our public practice) on the matter, in accord with the Biblical principles concerning "not offending brethren, but seeking their edification," and concerning "not offending the lost, so as not to hinder the gospel," and concerning "maintaining a clearly and culturally recognizable distinction between male and female." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I'm not Uke, so I can't claim to speak for him, but the point I got from what he said was that even perverted "men" seem to know what is women's wear. Which is why they choose it for themselves when they, erm, "come out."
 

Thank you, that was pretty much my point. Though I guess it isn't that the recognize that women must ONLY wear dresses, but rather, they see and understand dresses to be particularly more feminine or female than pants. Even the lost can recognize that dresses are more feminine and female than pants. IS that a basis upon which we should base our truths? Maybe not, but it interests me that the lost often see things more biblically that Christians. An unsaved person might chide a believer for smoking or drinking as indulging in non-Christian behavior, which some Christians will fight for their absolute right to do so.Most unbelievers also clearly see the ridiculousness of CCM, and see it for what it is? Christians wanting to keep up in clearly un-Christian music, while pretending it is okay because they sometimes mention Jesus. I think Southpark, CLEARLY not a Christian program, did an entire episode about that.  Why do the lost see things that are actually correct, that we as Believers often don't, or won't?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, when I said women's wear I wasn't pushing the idea that women should only wear dresses (although I do not wear pants)...it was meant more that dresses are only for women, not men. Unless they are trans-something or other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MountainChristian said:

James 2:2 ...... there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

What would this look like? Would pants on a woman be considered vile?

I suspect vile raiment would more be considered dirty, of poor quality, damaged. Like a hobo. Or is that not a PC word anymore? Sorry, I stick with Hobo.

 

What about overalls? Can a woman wear overalls? Overalls aren't very attractive, unless worn without a shirt, (unless they're worn without a shirt by myself, which should NEVER be done, EVER).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we choose to answer the original poster's question strictly using scripture, "what does the Bible say", and then the only scripture we have is Deuteronomy 22:5, we have a problem. No, it is not necessarily a dispensation problem, nor a "rightly dividing the word" problem. Although those would have to be addressed. It would be a hypocrisy problem of those quoting that passage and beating their brethren up with it. 

Because immediately after Deut 22:5 comes...

Deu 22:8  When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I've never heard a preacher preach that. As doctrine. As NT law.

Deu 22:11  Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What is that preacher wearing when he bullies women wearing pants based on this one scripture? When a loudmouth, ignorant bully stands up in the pulpit and starts frothing at the mouth over Deuteronomy 22:5 while wearing a wool / cotton blend suit, a cotton shirt and a silk tie, I turn him off. He is handling the word of God deceitfully.

Deu 22:12  Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Where are his fringes around his pants leg? Has he marred the corners of his beard? Where are his phylacteries? Why must the man insist that women keep one Jewish law that they think applies to women, yet ignore all of the Jewish law that applies clearly and definitely to men?

Or how about these little tidbits of domestic instructions ...

 

Deu 22:13  If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14  And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:... (my editing of 6 verses for brevity follows. )

Deu 22:20  But if this thing be true, and the tokens ofvirginity be not found for the damsel:

Deu 22:21  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

 

Are we going to start executing the daughters of church members who get married and are found to no longer be virgins? Of course not. Yet you want to hold the free people of God to one OT mosaic law just 16 verses above this on, in the same chapter? This is not a question of modesty, I don't care how you frame it. Modesty was never in question. If jeans a simply a question of modesty, in and of itself for a woman, they are for her husband as well. Nor is it a question of cross-dressing in perverted sexual practices. It is a question of CULTURE. We IFB are the muslims of the Evangelical world, for we take a cultural phenomenon of our wept-for bygone golden era, the Victorian Age, and turn it into a doctrinal stand, and then an obscure verse out of context and twist it into a club to beat back our own fear of loss in the face of modernism . Thus, we have created our own burqas, have we not?

 

Just for clarity, I fully support any woman who wishes to be a lady and dress in skirts and dresses at all times. It is a blessing to see, and I applaud it. But it is their CHOICE. That doesn't make the weather-worn, calloused-handed rancher's wife in North Dakota who is wearing jeans while helping her man calve in the freezing winter and put up hay in the scorching summer any less of a lady, any less Godly.

 

I admit I might get a little prickly regarding this subject, and if I came across ugly and offensive in tone to anyone, I apologize. For the tone. Not for the sentiments. I stand by those.

 

 Jas 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, weary warrior said:

If we choose to answer the original poster's question strictly using scripture, "what does the Bible say", and then the only scripture we have is Deuteronomy 22:5, we have a problem. No, it is not necessarily a dispensation problem, nor a "rightly dividing the word" problem. Although those would have to be addressed. It would be a hypocrisy problem of those quoting that passage and beating their brethren up with it. 

Because immediately after Deut 22:5 comes...

Deu 22:8  When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

I've never heard a preacher preach that. As doctrine. As NT law.

Deu 22:11  Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

What is that preacher wearing when he bullies women wearing pants based on this one scripture? When a loudmouth, ignorant bully stands up in the pulpit and starts frothing at the mouth over Deuteronomy 22:5 while wearing a wool / cotton blend suit, a cotton shirt and a silk tie, I turn him off. He is handling the word of God deceitfully.

Deu 22:12  Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy vesture, wherewith thou coverest thyself.

Where are his fringes around his pants leg? Has he marred the corners of his beard? Where are his phylacteries? Why must the man insist that women keep one Jewish law that they think applies to women, yet ignore all of the Jewish law that applies clearly and definitely to men?

Or how about these little tidbits of domestic instructions ...

 

Deu 22:13  If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

Deu 22:14  And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:... (my editing of 6 verses for brevity follows. )

Deu 22:20  But if this thing be true, and the tokens ofvirginity be not found for the damsel:

Deu 22:21  Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

 

Are we going to start executing the daughters of church members who get married and are found to no longer be virgins? Of course not. Yet you want to hold the free people of God to one OT mosaic law just 16 verses above this on, in the same chapter? This is not a question of modesty, I don't care how you frame it. Modesty was never in question. If jeans a simply a question of modesty, in and of itself for a woman, they are for her husband as well. Nor is it a question of cross-dressing in perverted sexual practices. It is a question of CULTURE. We IFB are the muslims of the Evangelical world, for we take a cultural phenomenon of our wept-for bygone golden era, the Victorian Age, and turn it into a doctrinal stand, and then an obscure verse out of context and twist it into a club to beat back our own fear of loss in the face of modernism . Thus, we have created our own burqas, have we not?

 

Just for clarity, I fully support any woman who wishes to be a lady and dress in skirts and dresses at all times. It is a blessing to see, and I applaud it. But it is their CHOICE. That doesn't make the weather-worn, calloused-handed rancher's wife in North Dakota who is wearing jeans while helping her man calve in the freezing winter and put up hay in the scorching summer any less of a lady, any less Godly.

 

I admit I might get a little prickly regarding this subject, and if I came across ugly and offensive in tone to anyone, I apologize. For the tone. Not for the sentiments. I stand by those.

 

 Jas 2:10  For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You do realize vs 5 though is the only one that uses the word ABOMINATION.

a friend of our Pastor had a transsexual attending his church, they confronted him about wearing dresses and told them that he had to repent of his lifestyle and submit to God and stop wearing dresses. the Pastor of the church made a statement along the lines of "the only person who's ever been to my church that had a conviction against women wearing pants is a man who wants to dress like a women". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

You do realize vs 5 though is the only one that uses the word ABOMINATION.

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?

Leviticus 11:10 lists catfish specifically as an ABOMINATION. That word abomination does not change the nature of the mosaic law, and our responsibility to place it in proper context according to the entire book of Galatians regarding it's place in the life of a New Testament saint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 5:32 PM, weary warrior said:

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?.

Um, better check your context there. In context, the 'dog' it is referring to is a male prostitute (in that culture, likely a sodomite). That verse is saying not to bring the proceeds of prostitution to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many old homes with flat roofs or having parts of their roofs flat do have them fenced so as to honor the Lord in Deuteronomy 22:8.

There are parts of the Old Testament that no longer apply and parts that do, such as cross dressing men and women.  It is referred to in the New Testament.  But as always said, that is not the only reason for ladies not to dress in men's clothing, there is also the issue of modesty, among others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2017 at 6:32 PM, weary warrior said:

Yes, Sir. I do. I also know that Deuteronomy 23:18 says that if you breed puppies to sell, and then tithe off of the money you make selling those puppies, it is an ABOMINATION. I don't guess we will be preaching against that one either, will we?

Leviticus 11:10 lists catfish specifically as an ABOMINATION. That word abomination does not change the nature of the mosaic law, and our responsibility to place it in proper context according to the entire book of Galatians regarding it's place in the life of a New Testament saint.

Lev 11:10 says they shall be an abomination to you (the Jew). it does not say that doing so is an abomination to God.Not to mention: " First, Peter was taught that the Old Testament dietary restrictions are no longer in effect for the New Testament believer (Acts 10:9-16). The truth of this was emphasized in that the command to rise, kill, and eat was repeated three times. " -David Cloud

 

On 1/6/2017 at 10:08 AM, Salyan said:

Um, better check your context there. In context, the 'dog' it is referring to is a male prostitute (in that culture, likely a sodomite). That verse is saying not to bring the proceeds of prostitution to God.

Yeah I looked that verse up as well and wondered if weary warrior even read that verse before referencing it.

Edited by Jordan Kurecki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that I'm probably going to be torn up for posting this, but as long as we're talking about abominations,

Deuteronomy 22:5 says" 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."  

This says that the person who does this is an abomination unto the Lord thy God, not that it's an abomination to wear the garments of the opposite sex. I don't know about you all, but I never want to be an abomination to God. Now, let the castigating begin. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a topic I am really struggling with. I will say that when I go to church I do wear nothing but skirts, modest tops, hose and shoes. At home (I'm a part time teacher) I wear whatever, pajama pants, tank tops. IF I go out (like to the store), I will wear jeans and tops. I have to dress reasonably professionally when I'm teaching so switching to skirts while teaching isn't a problem. Switching my wardrobe for everything else...well...that will be hard. 

I guess it's hard to change the habits of a lifetime...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BroMatt said:

Here is a question that must be asked when talking about gender clothing. Does culture decide what is a man's clothing and what is woman's clothing?

Well, for me -- I find nothing, nothing at all whatsoever, in Scripture that defines pants-wear as being inherently man's wear.  Therefore, I must ask -- Upon the foundation of what authority has it been determined that pants-wear IS inherently man's wear ("that which pertaineth unto a man")?  Pants-wear certainly was NOT man's wear (or, anyone's wear) among the children of Israel in Moses' day, when the command was originally given.  Pants-wear was NOT man's wear (or, anyone's wear) among the children of Israel in Jesus' day.  In fact, pants-wear was NOT even man's wear among the Roman and Greek cultures in the first century, since they held the viewpoint that only "those Barbarians" (primarily, of northern Europe) wore pants.  So then, when DID pants-wear become the defining element of man's wear ("that which pertaineth unto a man"), since it was NOT so even a few thousand years after the command of Deuteronomy 22:5 was originally given?
 

15 hours ago, busdrvrlinda54 said:

I know that I'm probably going to be torn up for posting this, but as long as we're talking about abominations,

Deuteronomy 22:5 says" 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."  

This says that the person who does this is an abomination unto the Lord thy God, not that it's an abomination to wear the garments of the opposite sex. I don't know about you all, but I never want to be an abomination to God. Now, let the castigating begin. 

Amen, and AMEN!  Certainly, Sister Linda, you should NOT want to be an abomination in the sight of God in any manner, including in the matter of this subject.  However, the question within this discussion is whether pants-wear is actually the definition for "that which pertaineth unto a man," since Deuteronomy 22:5 does not actually reference pants-wear in any direct manner (and since it could NOT have originally applied to pants-wear among the children of Israel at that time, since no one, neither men nor women, wore pants-wear as an outer garment in that time).  Furthermore, there is a question as to consistency for those who do hold that pants-wear is inherently man's wear, since by definition ANY garment with a split leg is pants-wear, including culottes, hosen, pajama pant-bottoms, etc.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pastor Markle,

Thank you, sir. I totally agree that there is nothing in the Bible that states that pantswear is strictly menswear. There are, however, some hints in the Bible that suggest what modest dressing is. For instance, Isaiah 47:1-3 says "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers.Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." This says that it is shameful for a woman to show her legs, and that God considers the showing of, at least the thighs, to be nakedness. Now, I know that this is old testament, but 2 Timothy 3:16 says that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: In Matthew 5:28,Jesus talks about men lusting after women being adultery, and I don't want to be even partially responsible for causing that sin. Romans 14:15, 16 says " But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of:" So, we are somewhat responsible for causing others to sin. And then there is 1 Tim. 2:9 "In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;"  The question, of course, is "what is modest apparel?" I see it to be clothing that is distinctly feminine, but would not cause a Christian man to stumble. Since most pants for women these days are skin tight, I choose that to be long, loose skirts. However, I do believe that what a woman wears is between her and God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 27 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...