More on Skirts

[Godsdrummer]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think he's saying that all sin is abomination to God. If we make certain sins an abomination and other sins not an abomination, we are making a special rule because of the use of the word "abomination" which is an argument no one in the NT used.

Growing up I always heard it preached like this, "once an abomination always and abomination". In other words they were making certain sins an abomination and others not.

The whole argument against pants on women is based on personal conviction against pants on women, and not sound historical backing of the clothing design of that day. We don't look down on Arabs that wear robes today as wearing women's dresses, if a robe is made for a man it is a mans apparel. The same thing should be said for women's pants.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Growing up I always heard it preached like this, "once an abomination always and abomination". In other words they were making certain sins an abomination and others not.

Really, well they were wrong. I know people who are wrong, but there wrongness doesn't cause me to swing in another direction.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

The whole argument against pants on women is based on personal conviction against pants on women, and not sound historical backing of the clothing design of that day.

You know why we have a small idea how they dressed in Roman and Greek cultures? Because they had imagery. You know how we really have no specifics on the Hebrews, Israelis, or Judeans? Because they only left a written record, not a artistic record. You know what they are showing you in the Bible dictionaries, and artworks concerning Moses and Jesus? The middle age to present? Arab, and Yemeni bedouin attire. That's like saying a biker in chaps looks just like a cow puncher from the early 1800s.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

We don't look down on Arabs that wear robes today as wearing women's dresses, if a robe is made for a man it is a mans apparel.

Arab military doesn't wear those medieval bedouin robes. Also, the whole dress thing on Arabs is actually part of their religion. Most Masjids want people to come to juma prayer with those dresses. There is no "we" in your statement. Because myself and others understand that the Arab muslim needs to repent and stop wearing 300 dollar shoes with the backs crushed down because they treat them like sandals.

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

The same thing should be said for women's pants.

There is no such thing as women pants. They is no such thing as same gender marriage. I guess in about 40 years everyone in Church Land will be arguing over allowing same gender marriage into the pews.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

There is no such thing as women pants.

While I understand your logic, I disagree. Because this would mean that it isn't inappropriate for men to wear ladies Jordache jeans. When the truth is, it is inappropriate for men to wear ladies jeans. Why? Because they pertain to a woman.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

While I understand your logic,

Actually you don't.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I disagree.

Beautiful.

I wouldn't expect anything else.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Because this would mean that it isn't inappropriate for men to wear ladies Jordache jeans.

So, men can marry men? Because in our day and age they have designed weddings to accept same genders.

Originally Posted by Aquila

When the truth is, it is inappropriate for men to wear ladies jeans. Why? Because they pertain to a woman.

Because modern secular society has feminized something masculine. You couldn't wear them even if you wanted to, because the rear end would split down the middle.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Actually you don't.

Actually, I do. You're saying that since there is no such thing as gay marriage in God's eyes, there is no such thing as women's pants in God's eyes. The logic is good. And I do get it.

My difference is more philosophical. Kind of like when Rev. Bernard argued that we cannot say that Christ was 100% man and 100% God. He argued that God is infinitely limitless. Therefore, God cannot be defined in totality. Thus the phrase "100% God" is impossible. One must say that Jesus is 100% man and "absolutely God".

I'll try to explain the ontological category fallacy I see with regards to comparing women's pants and gay marriage...

However, the only problem I see is that your creating a category fallacy in your comparison. You see, "marriage" is an immaterial concept that has been institutionalized. For example, the notion of the "satanic church". There's no such animal either. A "church" by its very definition cannot be "satanic". For if it were, it would not be a "church". Likewise, a "marriage" by definition cannot include two gay people. If it does, it isn't a "marriage". Both concepts do not exist.

But pants are not a concept. They are a tangible material reality. We just changed ontological categories. We moved from concept to a material thing. I'll explain... You can pick up a pair of pink, form fitting, ladies jeans, complete with sparkly sequins across the bottom. They are material. If we pick up a pair of women's pants and say that there is no such thing as women's pants, then what do we have in our hands? Pants. The jeans still exist. And so we cannot deny their existence. They are indeed a very real pair of pants. And if we say that women's pants do not exist because pants pertain to a man, then guess who we just allocated rightful use to? Men.

Thus, logically speaking, if there is no such thing as women's pants... and pants belong to men... then women's pants belong to men just as much as any pair of pants would.

One would have to demonstrate that they are not "pants" at all to avoid allocating them to males. But if we do that... then we lose all reason to deny that they belong to women.

So, women's pants are indeed women's pants. And no, it isn't appropriate for men to wear them. Why? They are women's pants. Now the logic is seamless (no pun intended). lol

It's a small, but nuanced, disagreement with your logic.

Beautiful.

I wouldn't expect anything else.

One day we'll see in glory how we sharpened one another, my brother.

So, men can marry men? Because in our day and age they have designed weddings to accept same genders.

Marriage is a concept. Gay marriage is an impossible concept. Pants (regardless of design) are a material reality. Different ontological categories.

Because modern secular society has feminized something masculine. You couldn't wear them even if you wanted to, because the rear end would split down the middle.

LOL!