Did Jesus Wear Pants?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

well just by looking I would say its a man with an unfitting name.

How about Martha Jane now?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think the whole debate is stupid.

So Did She

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This woman is a crossdresser.

HiLarry is that you?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

HiLarry is that you?

That was good.

[JoeBandy]

The last few times I have scrolled back over this thread all I can hear is Ozzy singing "I'm going off the rails on this crazy train"!!

[houston]

...

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's my understanding that the phrase means that the British Empire had colonized land on every continent around the globe. Therefore, at any given moment, the sun was shining somewhere on the British Empire. I don't think the same can be said of the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans.

The groups I mentioned were conquerors, and colonizers. Do yourself a favor put down the pot and pick up a book. John Bagot Glubb's Fate of Empires

Originally Posted by Aquila

The "Roman Catholic Empire"? One would have to be more specific.

Google it.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe humanity as a whole is savage.

Waxing philosophically? Sorry, civilization is just what the word means, pagan savages throw their unwanted children on the trash heap, and allow the elderly to starve. While you NPR out and start getting all pinko liberal on me on how America is the same way. That would be baloney, because you and I wouldn't be having this discussion in a barbaric savage society.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Oh, we're more sophisticated.

End of story, anything else you try to add to that to make us like cave dwellers is a waste of time.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No, it’s where all your liberal views eventually lead towards.

I made the point that the pursuit of Christian modesty would lead a woman to not wear pants. And you think that my views will lead to gender neutrality? That's clearly a dishonest assessment based on your own self created fears.

Deuteronomy 22:5 has many different interpretations based on language, culture, wording, etc. Views on it are all over the map. I'm simply saying that it's not a solid foundation on which to argue against pants on a woman. Look at the text itself. It speaks to an "abomination". Homosexuality is also listed as an abomination. Can a man be water baptized and go have sex with another man in the changing room and still be saved? No. Of course not. How then can a woman wear pants to church, be water baptized, go to the changing room, and put on an abomination and still be saved? An abomination is an abomination. The argument is dumb. Yes, it's dumb. What is in view in Deuteronomy 22:5 is something far more vile than a woman putting her women's Jordache. Your position seems naïve, a bit shallow, and rather Pharisaical. Now, I'll agree that the woman isn't dressed to exemplify Christian modesty. But my position holds that is a discipline she can grow into. Your position is that it is a soul costing abomination. Saved by grace, damned by slacks. What a greasy, slippery, watery, powerless, grace. Slips right through one's fingers if they put on pants. That's silly to me. Modesty is important and is a biblical teaching. I can see the case for pants being immodest and for the admonition to Christian women to put their pants, low cut blouses, tight form fitting clothing, away as they aspire to Christian modesty. I don't see how women's pants pertain to Deuteronomy 22:5. No man in his right mind would wear women's Jordache jeans. Why? Because they pertain to a woman. Of course, if you want to argue that they pertain to a man, then clearly you'd see nothing wrong with men wearing women's jeans. Now who favors cross dressing?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I made the point that the pursuit of Christian modesty would lead a woman to not wear pants. And you think that my views will lead to gender neutrality? That's clearly a dishonest assessment based on your own self created fears.

Deuteronomy 22:5 has many different interpretations based on language, culture, wording, etc. Views on it are all over the map. I'm simply saying that it's not a solid foundation on which to argue against pants on a woman. Look at the text itself. It speaks to an "abomination". Homosexuality is also listed as an abomination. Can a man be water baptized and go have sex with another man in the changing room and still be saved? No. Of course not. How then can a woman wear pants to church, be water baptized, go to the changing room, and put on an abomination and still be saved? An abomination is an abomination. The argument is dumb. Yes, it's dumb. What is in view in Deuteronomy 22:5 is something far more vile than a woman putting her women's Jordache. Your position seems naïve, a bit shallow, and rather Pharisaical. Now, I'll agree that the woman isn't dressed to exemplify Christian modesty. But my position holds that is a discipline she can grow into. Your position is that it is a soul costing abomination. Saved by grace, damned by slacks. What a greasy, slippery, watery, powerless, grace. Slips right through one's fingers if they put on pants. That's silly to me. Modesty is important and is a biblical teaching. I can see the case for pants being immodest and for the admonition to Christian women to put their pants, low cut blouses, tight form fitting clothing, away as they aspire to Christian modesty. I don't see how women's pants pertain to Deuteronomy 22:5. No man in his right mind would wear women's Jordache jeans. Why? Because they pertain to a woman. Of course, if you want to argue that they pertain to a man, then clearly you'd see nothing wrong with men wearing women's jeans. Now who favors cross dressing?

I think God would allow the woman who put her jeans back on time to learn and grow.

And sometimes we do go to extremes, like whether 18th century pantaloons under a floor length dress, or pantyhose are an abomination. I don't think either of those are.

But, I would rather see someone err on the side of being too conservative, then being too liberal.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But what about someone under the influence of Marijuna? God is speaking to him? A individual fogged out with reeefer to cloud his mind? Therefore as much as the racing thoughts are suppressed by the THC, logically also the voice of God. Personal relationship out the window. Also the convictions seem to run mild to wild with the supposed Christian gurus who either have a conviction or have no conviction. If you have no book, or historical findings you can go all over the place. Which sadly your group does, and often.

I'm more libertarian on the issue so we obviously have some disagreements. I don't disrespect your position. But I see some problems with it from where I sit. I'll share my thoughts on your questions, because they are good questions.

But what about someone under the influence of Marijuna? God is speaking to him?

I wouldn't put much stock in God speaking to anyone under any strong medication. And anyone who would take any medication or substance thinking that they will hear from God is clearly in error. Maybe we can count this point a point that we agree upon.

A individual fogged out with reeefer to cloud his mind? Therefore as much as the racing thoughts are suppressed by the THC, logically also the voice of God.

While under the influence, no. But on the flip side, when one is having a full blown PTSD attack, can they hear God? Can on hear God over racing thoughts, intrusive thoughts or memories, sudden bursts of rage, anger, and weeping? Based on my experience, no. But I know this. The guy who is stoned isn't dangerous to himself or others. He's laughing at something stupid, or eating snack chips like they are going out of style. The man in a full blown PTSD attack is likely to eventually harm himself or others. It's a time bomb. What is best? Healing! That is best! But what if... the healing is delayed or never comes? We all know that God doesn't always choose to heal. What then? Would it be better for the individual to be on medication and managing these potentially dangerous symptoms... or to be a time bomb who is on the edge of snapping and doing the unthinkable to himself or others? With a heavy heart, I say, it's best if the man is medicated and managing symptoms. Being "fogged out" will only last a few hours. But the days that follow wherein he experiences relief from the symptoms he struggles he feels crystal clear in his thinking. He feels steady in his emotions. He prays, read the Bible, plays with his kids, laughs with his wife. And yes, during those days, he can hear from God. When the symptoms start to return a couple days later, they return slowly as this medication wears off, not like a hurricane as with other meds. He can actually stop, think for a second, and make plans to set time aside to medicate that night. It's far less medication, and it is even easier on the body and all involved than even the prescription meds. And, it's all natural. Made by God. No one ever died from overdosing on it. The libertarian in me says, "Well, that's better than the guy or someone else becoming a statistic."

Also the convictions seem to run mild to wild with the supposed Christian gurus who either have a conviction or have no conviction.

That's a self constructed illusion. Because on the other side, the more conservative position looks the same.

For example...

The conservative will argue that something like a pair of pants on a woman is an abomination against Almighty God that must be condemned for the sake of the human soul. But he doesn't care one bit if someone who has PTSD or some other debilitating condition suffers from extreme pain, suicidal thoughts, violent rage, and poses a danger to himself or society. Ummm… when was the last time a pair of pants killed themselves or murdered their family in a fit of uncontrollable rage produced by PTSD? When was the last time a pair of pants couldn't stand the pain of cancer or the horrors of current cancer treatments and killed themselves?

From this side of the fence... it looks like the conservative side tends to major in minors. Having convictions for traditional views on things... but no conviction as it relates to the human condition. Now, I'm not saying it's always true. I'm just saying that this is how it looks from this side of the spectrum.

So, my point is, don't assume what you perceive to be is exactly as you see it. Dare to leave your comfort zone and truly "hear" what those of us are saying. I get it. Pants on a woman are an abomination that will ........ the soul. I've heard it preached many times. I get it, women wearing pants is going to cause society to drift to a unisex liberal dystopia. But it sounds silly.