Serious Pants/ Skirts Question... Not Trying to Debate... Thanks!

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I really would like to get the opinions of some of the conservative brethren. Serious opinions, not jabs like "lost as two boys kissing"... thanks!

Sorry, I thought you wanted scriptural opinions. The UC's only have serious opinions.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

Sorry, I thought you wanted scriptural opinions. The UC's only have serious opinions.

I want "serious scriptural" opinions!

Actually, I would like to hear the reasoning of someone who would say "his position is not acceptible"... how do they come to that conclusion?

If it's acceptible for this baptist guy who just got the "truth", then why would it not be acceptible for OP preachers of today to reevaluate their traditional position?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I want "serious scriptural" opinions!

Actually, I would like to hear the reasoning of someone who would say "his position is not acceptible"... how do they come to that conclusion?

If it's acceptible for this baptist guy who just got the "truth", then why would it not be acceptible for OP preachers of today to reevaluate their traditional position?

tradition

I have no problem with anyone using as a line that they have drawn, but teach it as such.

However, many honestly believe that is what that scripture means, and I can respect that.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Esther

tradition

I have no problem with anyone using as a line that they have drawn, but teach it as such.

However, many honestly believe that is what that scripture means, and I can respect that.

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

Again, my point that I was trying to make it is the MAN trying to look like a woman? Is the WOMAN trying to look like a man?

It is not about women wearing pants, which was not even an issue 2,000 years ago, as even men didn't wear pants. Both genders wore robes with color distinction.

But that scripture IMO is about MEN/WOMEN not dressing to look like the opposite sex.

We keep saying that scripture is to women, it is too both sexes.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Are you speaking of the traditional OP interpretation and application? How was this passage interpreted and applied 2000 years ago? What if you wipe out the history of American culture, except for the way people have dressed for the last 30 years, how would it be possible to come to this traditional conclusion?

Consider, that OP's today who appeal to the pants/skirts interpretation of Deut 22:5 are doing so from a 1940's socitie's paradigm. If you were to only use the paradigm of "men's/women's" apparel for society of the last 30 years, what would be the most probable interpretation and application? Would people arbitrarily conclude pants/skirts? Or is there another tenable conclusion that they could arrive at besides "pants/skirts" and still be consistent with the "spirit" of the law of Deut 22:5?

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

[Esther]

Originally Posted by philjones

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

I don't see where one has to do anything with the other. Extremes here.

He asked about the intrepretation of a scripture, not about modesty.

Although I and others have said before, pants and dresses can both be immodest as well as modest.

Originally Posted by Esther

I don't see where one has to do anything with the other. Extremes here.

He asked about the intrepretation of a scripture, not about modesty.

Although I and others have said before, pants and dresses can both be immodest as well as modest.

Esther,

They are indeed relative. I was also referring to the interpretation of a scripture, just not Deut. 22:5 or whereever it is?

I was speaking of the one that talks about modest apparel. I Tim 2:9. If he is comfortable interpreting one differently and is accepted then it would follow that he would have to be accepted with his interpretation of the other.

I will assure you that there are many OPs on this site that feel it is fine for ladies to run around on the beach in their bra and panties and still be saved. Of course these same folks would be embarrassed if I accidentally walked in on them getting dressed in their REAL bra and panties. Go figure.

[BobDylan]

[QUOTE=philjones;241310]Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?[/QUOTE]

I don't necessarily agree with this slippery slope conclusion. The principle of modesty is replete in scripture, and most societies in general have a basic understanding of modesty and immodesty. It doesn't take a scholar to look at biblical customs and the society of the bible and determine what was considered modest and immodest at that time, and throughout most eras in most societies. The same cannot be said for "pants/skirts" being the absolute paradigm for what is women's and men's apparel. Revaluating something that is societal based (pants skirts), in light of something that isn't sociatal based (modesty), is comparing apples and oranges. There is no reason here, imo, to force-join these two issues (modesty and pants/skirts) in that each can be handled seperately on their own merits and biblical interpretation.

Originally Posted by philjones

Bob,

I understand what you are asking and what you have just said regarding the culture of the past 30 years.

I guess my concern would be that this same Baptist preacher would also interpret as modest a woman parading around on a beach or at a pool in her bra and panties (called a swimsuit for some unknown reason). Can he continue to embrace that position and still be OK?

Once again..a good question is trumped by a Con position showing an EXTREME case....try to answer the question with out extreme cases and with modesty on both parts and you have no argument.
For you to assume they would also agree with "bra and panties" is ignorant analogies.