Originally Posted by Biblestudent

Male
Psalms 133:2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;

No offense - but did you actually read the verse? Skirts of his garments. Exactly the point I was making. He was not WEARING a skirt - the passage is referring to the skirt/edge of his garments.

[Biblestudent]

At least it did not say "skirts of his pants".

? Skirts of his garments means the edge of his garments - not that he is wearing a skirt.

Originally Posted by jerry

You certainly cannot believe God accepts cross-dressing now.

Hey Jerry,

No I don't believe God is for cross-dressing. I just believe that through this verse He is asking for a distinction between how a man and woman dress. Nothing more. If there is no distinction, then it becomes an abomination. But if I say that, then wouldn't the Israelites have been an abomination because men and women both wore long flowing garments in that day?

I'm starting to get confused a little I think. Because I think it also varies with the culture you were raised in. God did not set a up the RULE that men where pants and women wear skirts. The only reason we say a man should wear pants and a woman should wear skirts is because that is the way our culture was originally as Americans. It provided a distinction, that's it. But if you go into other countries the dress code is different for a man than here in the US because they were raised in a different culture. Right?

Also about the abomination debate, it's obvious God told His children many times not to eat the unclean food. God also says that disobedience is an abomination unto the Lord. If that's the case, then if His children ate of that meat they were abominable because they disobeyed and ate of the unclean food. You can say it was the act of disobedience that was abominable and not the food, but you have to understand, if they ate of the food it was an abomination to God because they would have to disobey Him which was an abomination. Right?

Tit 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

In this verse it lists disobedience with abominations. It's obvious to conclude that disobedience is an abomination to God. Right? I know this verse is speaking about lost people, but I personally don't think that matters one way or the other. Because God, I believe still hates sin whether the lost do it, or the saved.

This is the only reason that I can't grasp your interpretation of cross - dressing still being abominable today. I continue appreciating your thoughts on this topic, because I'm still trying to determine my own stand on this issue. Thanks again for all your responses.

Lei-kjvonly

A pair of pants cut and designed for wear by a woman are very different to a pair intended for wear by a man. If any man here disagrees, put a pair of womens pants on and look at yourself in the mirror...( I have never carried out this experiment myself )

I believe that the intent of the heart of the wearer is to be considered.

Has the woman dressed herself in mens clothes with the intention of impersonating a man, or in tight jeans with the desire to display her body in an imodest way? Is she wearing them to conform to worldly view of "womens liberation" or just because theyare more comfortable or practical ?

Just what are "pants"? How high or low is the hem? Can women wear underpants under their skirt?

Only someone with a death wish would suggest to a Scotsman that his wearing a kilt is an effort by him to feel more "womanly".

Having said that, there are women in our church that waer womens slacks on occasion, but do not wear them to church so as not to offend those that have a different conviction on the matter.

Fundy

[Biblestudent]

I agree with you both.

Originally Posted by lei-kjvonly

But if I say that, then wouldn't the Israelites have been an abomination because men and women both wore long flowing garments in that day?

Don't let Hollywood movies interpret the Bible for you. The Bible does not teach that everyone wore robes - and of course there was no way they wore unisex robes. God says there must be a difference between the garments.

Forget the pants versus dress issue for now - let's just stick with the meaning of the passage, then make applications. If we can't agree on the meaning and whether it is for today, we are never going to agree on application.

Also about the abomination debate, it's obvious God told His children many times not to eat the unclean food. God also says that disobedience is an abomination unto the Lord. If that's the case, then if His children ate of that meat they were abominable because they disobeyed and ate of the unclean food. You can say it was the act of disobedience that was abominable and not the food, but you have to understand, if they ate of the food it was an abomination to God because they would have to disobey Him which was an abomination. Right?...
This is the only reason that I can't grasp your interpretation of cross - dressing still being abominable today.

Sure, God wanted to obey them - but the issue in Deuteronomy 22:5 is that disobeying this verse was an abomination to God - the unclean foods were not declared to be an abomination to God, as I have already attempted to show.

Originally Posted by fundy

I believe that the intent of the heart of the wearer is to be considered.

The verse does not focus on the motivation - it focusses on the action. God is offended when we wear clothing pertaining to the opposite sex - He doesn't say He is only offended if we have the wrong attitude or motivation for it.

Originally Posted by jerry

- the unclean foods were not declared to be an abomination to God, as I have already attempted to show.

I don't understand how you don't see that it was an abomination to God. God doesn't have to say everything specifically to let His people know that it was an abomination Him or not. He doesn't say that smoking is wrong in the Bible, but He implies it when He speaks about taking care of your temple. To me it is obvious that it was an abomination to God to eat of those animals, because whenever He described the unclean from the clean, He called the unclean abominable. He told His children not to eat of the abominable beasts. Therefore if God looks at something and calls it abominable, and you partake of it, then you are abominable in God's eyes. Why can't you see that? When God looked at those animals He saw them as an abomination to eat. Don't get the impression that I'm saying that God thinks what He created was an abomination, it was just eating of it that was.

Lev 11:42 Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all four, or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination.

He clearly calls these animals an abomination! Please understand I'm not trying to prove you wrong in all of this, but as I said before I'm trying to make it my own. I will ask that you be open to my opinion just as much as I am open to yours. Please don't read my posts with a closed mind (I'm not saying that you are). When I read your responses, I really do have an open mind to your opinion, and I respect it, but I just can't get over this one roadblock. I'm not trying use this point to say that cross - dressing is acceptable in God's sight. I do not believe it is as I've already said. I just believe that when scripture is stating this point that it also involves the heart as well. For example a transvestite would be an abomination. Because of the heart behind it.

My point with certain sins being abominable to God Himself are that those sins are always and forever an abomination to Him. A ceremonial law that He was later going to do away with is not an abomination to Him (unless the person offered the sacrifices with a wicked heart - but in that case, in was their wicked heart that was abominable, and the passages indicate it as such). However, in Leviticus 11, various times God states it was an abomination to THEM to eat the unclean foods - not to Him. Later, He did away with those laws - yet if they were an abomination to Him, they would still be. Every other sin mentioned in the OT that was an abomination to God Himself still is today - because they go against His moral law, His nature - and that will never change.

For the sake of your own growth and the benefit of this discussion, look up every time the word abomination is used in the OT - see the context. Is it referring to being an abomination to God or to others? Now, out of the ones that are abominable to God (where it specifically states this, not just sins we think should be an abomination), which ones - if any - are clearly done away with? Which ones - though not specifically mentioned as being done away with - certainly cannot be acceptable to God today? (Such as prostituting your daughter, incest, bestiality, sodomy - we don't need a NT passage telling us these are still abominable in God's sight - that is a given, which I am sure we can all agree on.)

Again, forget the issue of pants versus skirts/dresses - are there any abominations to God in the OT that are now either done away with or now acceptable to Him? If so, then perhaps Deuteronomy 22:5 is no longer an abomination to Him too. BUT if it is still offensive to Him today to sin in that manner, now we can prayerfully determine what type of clothing/garments would cross that line if worn by the opposite gender. If we cannot agree that the passage is still directly applicable to us today, we will never see eye to eye on applications of it.