More on Skirts

[Amanah]

Scott, are you saying that there are no timeless principles in the Old Testament?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Scott, are you saying that there are no timeless principles in the Old Testament?

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.

[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.

[Scott Pitta]

Not one in the NT pointed out the word "abomination" and said it was a key word in identifying a timeless cross dispensational sin.

As indicated by others, "abomination" is used in the OT and the NT to describe a great number of sins. This includes "unclean" foods in Leviticus.

No one in the NT, or in the OT, pointed out all the "abominations" as a group and said these are a special class of sin.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Not one in the NT pointed out the word "abomination" and said it was a key word in identifying a timeless cross dispensational sin.

As indicated by others, "abomination" is used in the OT and the NT to describe a great number of sins. This includes "unclean" foods in Leviticus.

No one in the NT, or in the OT, pointed out all the "abominations" as a group and said these are a special class of sin.

The scripture in question relates to cross dressing.

I think we can agree that cross dressing is still a sin?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The scripture in question relates to cross dressing.

I think we can agree that cross dressing is still a sin?

Revelation 21:27 pretty much sums up the New Testament view of the abominations found in the OT. Also how it all related to the New Testament.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Revelation 21:27 pretty much sums up the New Testament view of the abominations found in the OT. Also how it all related to the New Testament.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

What say ye up in chilly Wisconsin?