|
|
 |
Reply
| |
In Deuteronomy 22: 5 it is stated "The woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all that do so are an abomination to the Lord your God." Is it okay to wear pants out of Church for example work. Or should we wear pants at all times except for events such as sports or hiking? |
|
Reply
| |
It's not a matter of blowing off man's laws as to trying to get them to understand as you said culture of the times. For women to wear anything but the long dresses was not heard of. Even in Ellen White's time it still was out of the norm and not done. Pants were strickly for men. But in those times women did not have to work as a man, did not have to be the soul support or part of the support of the family as we do today. Women take on many different roles today that would have made men ashamed to allow. Today it is a norm. I don't adjust the Bible to how I want to live. I adjust myself on how the Bible wants me to live. But as you said we also must consider the culture and the times. I also apologize for my bluntness. I sometime can be that way. Another thing that would not have happened back them. |
| |
Reply
| |
its ditturbing of a reference that has come up a couple of times here. Is there a differance between "God's Law" (10) and "Moses' Law" (603) or is there not a seperation of "The Law," when all of it came from God? deut 4:5-8 "Surely I [Moses] have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the Lord my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the Lord our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?" ...(ch. 4-27 review more than just the 10 commandments, by the way) deut 27:1-4 "Now Moses, with the elders of Israel, commanded the people, saying: "Keep all the commandments which I command you today. And it shall be, on the day when you cross over the Jordan to the land which the Lord your God is giving you, that you shall set up for yourselves large stones, and whitewash them with lime. You shall write on them all the words of this law, when you have crossed over, that you may enter the land which the Lord your God is giving you, 'a land flowing with milk and honey,' just as the Lord God of your fathers promised you. Therefore it shall be, when you have crossed over the Jordan, that on Mount Ebal you shall set up these stones, which I command you today, and you shall whitewash them with lime." Moses never gave a law, that he was not commanded by the Lord to give to Israel. *(Ex. 19:3-8) [notice again how many gentiles are Jewish, by the way.{rom 2:14}] so the "thats moses' laws, not God's law" statement is really in error. |
|
Reply
| |
Hiya Desi, You have been shown now many times that there is a difference between Gods Moral Law, the 10 Commandments, and the Mosiac law, the rest that Moses hand wrote on scrolls, it is plain and simple but you choose not to acknowledge it, that is your choice, but now i would say it has been covered, we dont need to hear anymore about it. God bless you Desi, Seek. |
|
Reply
| |
i understand seek, and i wont broing it up again that the SDA sees a seperation of the Law, but the bible does not show such. but ill drop it, if you will. well agree to disagree, and leave it at that. |
|
Reply
| |
| The bible does show a separation, Desi, as Seek said, you just choose to not acknowledge it. |
|
Reply
| |
| So NOW, let it be dropped. |
|
Reply
| |
| Didn't both men and women wear robes when Moses wrote about cross dressing? The difference must have been obvious then just as the difference between men's and women's pant are obvious today. |
|
Reply
| |
Well in Moses' day you never heard of anyone confused to whether it was a man or woman. I am sure that the clothing was distinguished as not to confuse, but also in those times women didn't have to work as a man did, or as outspoken as a man was, and men were the head of the household, and women roles were plainly defined in their society. |
| |
Reply
| |
Hi Many are convinced that the 10 and other 603 are seperable, so for them it is settled in their minds. But that does not settle it for one who interpets the new covenant as meaning all 613. I feel it is rather rude to say the topic is closed, because it in effect discourages open discussion. Blessings! Love-n- Grace |
|
Reply
| | | From: mae | Sent: 8/25/2007 8:09 PM |
Hi everybody, This issue has surfaced and resurfaced decade after decade. At times pious people took it upon themselves to berate others who wore pants to church, and as a result those people stopped coming to fellowship, cause after all the 'fellowship' wasn't that pleasant. It seems this attitude, even the original question, stems from a legalistic mindset, rather than from the teachings of the New Covenant/Testament which provides general moral principles of conduct, and leaves it up to the individual Spirit-filled believer to be led by the Spirit in all matters. I see the point you are making, BB, that times have changed since these Scriptural admonitions were given. I especially agree with content of your message #16. My mom was a farmer's wife. While my dad worked in the city as a machinist, she raised us kids and ran the farm, which meant caring for livestock, shoveling manure out of the barn, handling bales of feed and hay, clearing the snow by hand, and carrying water to the house for our use because we did not have running water all those years. You bet she wore pants. She did everything: helping the cows deliver during calving time, milking them, and even caring for their injuries. Trying to stay warm in the minus 40 degree winters while performing these duties without wearing pants (several pairs at one time) would have been impossible. Actually, the real issue is modesty. There are modest and immodest versions of not just pants, but skirts and dresses as well. We've all seen them. Yuck. Have you ever noticed that so often, when the topic of what women should or should not wear comes up, it is often a man who has the most to say? I remember years ago reading a booklet by Joe Crews (Amazing Facts) on what women should/should not wear. It was really harsh. I remember thinking, how come you don't have anything to say about men's apparel. I have had the sense that some men come against women wearing pants, because they get into lust if women appear in public that way. Maybe women should wear that bag thingy that the women in the Taliban have to wear. There, that's my little rant for the day. Mae |
|
Reply
| |
Hi Hero, You are missing my point. The 613 laws were God's Word given to the people of Israel. They are not laws of man, but laws of God. Israel had a theocracy for much of their existence, they had sacrifices that are no longer binding on Christians, which is why the God-given laws for them were applicable for their time, but not applicable for us. It has nothing to do with they are "more Godly" or "less Godly" than other aspects of God's Word. Some were for certain situations, some for specific times, and others are universal. The 10 commandments are not the whole of what we believe as the moral law. There are many other aspects we look to the law and other parts of the Bible for dictates on what is moral and what is not. I agree that there are aspects of the historical jewish law that are no longer binding. Even modern-day orthodox Jews do not practice the law in its entirety. The fallacy was in saying that that the part of the Bible not cast in stone was "of man" versus "of God." Hope that helps clarify for you, Bill |
|
Reply
| | | From: mae | Sent: 8/26/2007 2:26 AM |
Thanks, Bill for that. I think part of the confusion comes from people thinking there are different 'strengths' of "inspiration", with some being more relevant (or holy) than others. This discussion has been going on for years in SDA circles, regarding Mrs. White's inspiration. The discussions went round and round, as I remember, was it "verbal" inspiration, was it "thought" inspiration, etc........... That has never made much sense to me, cause the Author of inspiration is none other than God Himself, and however He chooses to speak it is still very much His Word. God works, moves, acts, speaks in different ways. (He is very creative, after all). So whether He wrote something with His finger on stone, or dictated word by word to Moses who transcribed it on parchment or whatever medium was used at the time, makes absolutely no difference to the holiness of the Word. It is the Word that is Holy, not the stuff it was written on. Mae |
|
Reply
| |
#13) no not really, but we'll drop it for now. #15) so if a guy wears Calvin Kline jeans is he breaking that law, and the same if a girl wears Levi's *(Jewish) Jeans? let ask Mr. Levi Struos , he of all people should know the answer to this question, lol. at least he was jewish, and knew what the "Law" meant. #17) agreed. "open-minded ness" is need for all parties in discussions, but the bible has the final word, not opinions. #18) agreed mae. to preven any 'doubt' on the subject the muslims have it right in that only the eyeballs can be seen to avoid any 'debate/ argument' on 'what women can wear. they just issue standard uniforms to their wives, and kill them if they 'break the law.' so lets get back to the 21st century. a wife being modest for her husband should *(not saying does) respect her husband accordenly. and if a woman is not married *(and is Christian) she has a husband in Heaven, and should respect Him accordenly. Their is a 'role' both sexes have, and leading other men into temptation is not 'kosher' for the husband on earth, or Heaven. #20) wasnt ALL of the Law written on stone according to josh 8:32? but i know that was 'moses' law,' not God's. God only commanded moses to give it all. |
|
Reply
| |
Hi all, the reason why i posted this topic is bcuz i love wearing pants,
especially tight jeans. A co-worker of mine scolded another co-worker and I
bcuz as adventist we are suppose to pot ray a certain look instead of being
of the world.....she thought that by wearing pants to work we were not
acting like the young adventist women that we ought to be. Thank you all
for your responses.
God Bless!
Trini.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
|
|
Reply
| |
A co-worker of mine scolded another co-worker and I
bcuz as adventist we are suppose to pot ray a certain look instead of being
of the world.....she thought that by wearing pants to work we were not
acting like the young adventist women that we ought to be. Thank you all
for your responses.
football, my personal suggestion would be acting like a "Child of God" ought to be, and not so concerned what a "good adventist" should be. the bible says "common sense goes a long way, but man made rules look religious, but do nothing in reality." (col 2:18-23) |
|
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First
Return to Bible Discussion