Bible Modesty - Part 1

James, Sodom is an exception. The exception proved the rule. Sodom was so exceptionally wicked that God destroyed them outright. Has there been a society since Sodom that was so wicked that God destroyed them outright? No.

 

Is that the 'Sodom was the height of wickedness' defense? Don't forget that God destroyed the whole world by a flood. Sodom was wicked, and they were destroyed for their wickedness. But just because God hasn't destroyed us doesn't mean we are far behind Sodom in wickedness. God destroyed Sodom as an example.

2 Peter 2:5-6
5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly;

Romans 9:29 And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.

Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

I wouldn't mistake God's longsuffering for His approval.

 

But still, where does the Bible condemn cross-dressing?

 

Definitely, off topic, but I cannot resist the opportunity to demonstrate that the foolishness of your arguments are quite wide-ranging. Here is plank #1 of the Communist manifesto.

I sell cars for a living. I can assure you that there are many Americans who possess private property.

A female cross-dresser is characterized by her habit of dressing up in man's clothes with the purpose of passing herself off as a man.

 

James, the destruction of the entire world by a flood preceeded the destruction of Sodom. The flood destroyed all mankind (except Noah). This restrained wickedness to the point that the next time God destroyed a society it was only one city, not the entire world. Since then, no entire city or society has been wiped out by God. So, Peter's word that Sodom is a warning to mankind of God's ability to destroy is a warning that man has, so far, heeded. We know that God will destroy this present earth and all unbelievers at a time in the future, but there is no indication that a society will be destroyed becasue of disobedience between now and then. It could happen, but given the effectiveness of the example of Sodom, such destruction does not seem likely.

 

I'm pretty sure that it has been quoted on this thread. I don't know the reference, but the scriptures say that man is not to wear that which pertains to a woman. I'm surprised that you are not aware of this verse.

 

Oh, that verse. But as long as I get my dress from the mens dept, it's not cross dressing. Like Rufus said, if I put the zipper in the front then it will be a man dress.

 

Tell that to the Kehlo family.

What are men's clothes?

 

Was New Orleans an act of Gaia?

 

What happened to Pompeii? I found this enlightening article on Wikipedia. I don't suggest viewing the examples.

 

oops my bad... I forgot who I had discussed this with... I am getting forgetful with age....:BangHead: :BangHead:

But seriously, are you sayin that all churches that allow women to wear pants are lukewarm.?..

Surely you know that that is too broad.

And of course, I am sure you know some that are lukewarm that make their women wear pants.

Lukewarmness deals with the heart, not what is on the legs.

 

It is a potential attribute of a lukewarm attitude towards God's instruction for the adornment and separation of His people.

Or narrow depending on the point of view.

What is on the legs is an outward expression of what is in the heart.

 

Replies to Rufus

Rufus, do you own any private property?

 

Would I be more or less sinning than the women who put on pants?

 

No. I have a house owned by a bank. I am granted use of that house so long as I pay the mortgage and pay property taxes. If I pay off the mortgage and I choose to no longer support state run schools and the state sponsored religion of secular humanism, then the state takes my property. If the state decides they want to use this property for an international freeway system run by foreign corporations as evidenced by the TransTexasCorridor, then they will confiscate the property at a price that they determine. If they decide that they can use this property to a greater commercial advantage as evidenced in the Kehlo case, they can also confiscate the property. If this topic is important to you, please start a new thread and we can hash it out.

Fair enough.

 

James, who asked:

Yes. In our culture, dresses are for women exclusively. Now in some cultures you could wear a garment much like a skirt that would not be sinful because it is viewed as masculine in the culture.

These matters of dress are not matters of absolutes. The Bible is not a Sears catalog that shows us pictures and designs of what people should wear. It is a book that gives us broad priciples that must be applied in a given culture. The principles are modesty and distinctiveness between male and female. But what is manly and what is feminine can differ depending upon the cultural context.

 

So the guys in skirts are just a little ahead of their time. Pants used to be viewed as strictly masculine. Some women took the initiative to start wearing them and in time they became accepted and these women are lauded as heroes by pants wearing women everywhere. Even though, by your estimation, going against the cultural norm for gender appropriate dress would be sin. So aren't these sinners in skirts just the dress-reform heroes of tomorrow? Or do we draw a line in the sand now?

 

James, three question for you:
'
1. When were pants viewed as strictly masculine?

2. Who made the rule that they are strictly masculine?

3. When did women start to wear pants and why did they start?

 

Are we going to debate history now?

 

From Wikipedia