CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

PostPosted: **Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:54 pm**

I've been wanting to ask this for a while.

I was in church this past Sunday and the guest speaker said something that really caught my attention: "Man shall not wear anything that pertains to a woman." This is the second time I've heard this (as far as I can remember). Then the speaker went on saying how men shouldn't have earrings in their ears and some other stuff I don't remember.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with men having earrings in their ears. I mean, I understand that something isn't quite right if a man is walking around in a mini-skirt. What has been bothering me is that I have heard this so many times yet I do not know what scriptures address this specific issue.

I was wondering if anyone out there knew any scriptures (or if there is any scriptures on this. Thanks.

~G_G

PostPosted: **Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:59 pm**

If there is, it sounds to me like it's under the Old Law, i.e. Old Testament. One of my LPOs in the Navy used the Old Law to say why she didn't believe you should get tattoos (I have three). There's a verse in there that says that you shouldn't put markings or symbols on your skin, or something like that. That statement is probably in there as well.

That being said, I believe we are under the moral obligations of the Old Law, the most famous of which are the Ten Commandments, but we are no longer under the ritualistic obligations. Eating pork, getting tattoos or piercings, whatnot.

If we were, did you know that according to the Old Law you're not allowed to wear clothing made of two different types of material? That's right! No poly-cotton blends in God's family!

PostPosted: **Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:04 pm**

kaemmerite wrote:If there is, it sounds to me like it's under the Old Law, i.e. Old Testament. One of my LPOs in the Navy used the Old Law to say why she didn't believe you should get tattoos (I have three). There's a verse in there that says that you shouldn't put markings or symbols on your skin, or something like that. That statement is probably in there as well.

That being said, I believe we are under the moral obligations of the Old Law, the most famous of which are the Ten Commandments, but we are no longer under the ritualistic obligations. Eating pork, getting tattoos or piercings, whatnot.

If we were, did you know that according to the Old Law you're not allowed to wear clothing made of two different types of material? That's right! No poly-cotton blends in God's family!

What??

I didn't know that much :stressed:

But I have read the scripture talking about no tatooes.

I'm thinking it's something in the Old Testament but, I repeat, I'm not sure.

PostPosted: **Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:08 pm**

By the way, that's one of the verses the Mennonites (I think) take very seriously. They don't allow the women to wear pants, and they have to wear these hair nets like cafeteria workers. Anyway, like I said, I have three tattooes and I don't think I've violated any of God's teachings...this body is only temporary anyway.

Also, I just noticed I'm in your sig. I'm flattered. :red:

PostPosted: **Thu Sep 09, 2004 6:33 pm**

since (in this society) earrings are NOT considered a particularly feminine article of clothing, it is probably alright for a man to wear an earring.

You better watch out for the dudes wearing gold hoops, though.

PostPosted: **Fri Sep 10, 2004 11:35 pm**

"A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God." (Deuteronomy 22:5) That is part of the old Jewish Law.

I almost don't want to post the next bit, because it may cause an argument. However, it's in the Bible. All I can do is tell you what I've learned about it.

"I am so glad, dear friends, that you always keep me in your thoughts and you are following the Christian teaching I passed on to you. But there is one thing I want you to know: A man is responsible to Christ, a woman is responsible to her husband, and Christ is responsible to God. A man dishonors Christ if he covers his head while praying or prophesying. But a woman dishonors her husband if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair. And since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, then she should wear a covering. A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is God's glory, made in God's own image, but woman is the glory of man. For the first man didn't come from woman, but the first woman came from man. And man was not made for woman's benefit, but woman was made for man. So a woman should wear a covering on her head as a sign of authority because the angels are watching.

But in relationships among the Lord's people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. For although the first woman came from man, all men have been born from women ever since, and everything comes from God.

What do you think about this? Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head? Isn't it obvious that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair? And isn't it obvious that long hair is a woman's pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering. But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it." (1 Corinthians 11:2-16, NLT)

The issue here is reverence and respect. This had a lot to do with the culture at the time. It was shameful for a Jewish woman to appear in public without a head covering; only prostitutes did that kind of thing. In some Middle Eastern countries, it's still that way. However, Greek women may have had no such rule, and it was causing division in the church when both cultures came together to worship.

As for the hair length, that was also a cultural issue. Long-haired men in Corinth were associated with pagan temple prostitution, and typically the only short-haired women were prostitutes. These days in America, and in most countries, this would not be an issue. The main point here is not to do things that may damage your witness for Christ or cause division in the church.

PostPosted: **Sat Sep 11, 2004 3:43 pm**

....*thinking*....so, according to the old Jewish law it would be an abomination to God (for example) if women wear pants? But that has changed because of the new covenant right? *slightly confused*

EireWolf wrote:The main point here is not to do things that may damage your witness for Christ or cause division in the church.

...Okay, I'll just take that as the answer to my question. Thanks.

kaemmerite wrote:Also, I just noticed I'm in your sig. I'm flattered.

Your welcome. I thought it was funny. :grin:

PostPosted: **Sat Sep 11, 2004 4:22 pm**

Golden_Griff wrote:....*thinking*....so, according to the old Jewish law it would be an abomination to God (for example) if women wear pants? But that has changed because of the new covenant right? *slightly confused*

The following is my own interpretation; I don't claim to know the mind of God.

I think the spirit of the Law is this: Women should not try to be like men, and men should not try to be like women. (Think transvestites.) Be who God made you, and don't insult God by trying to be something other than what He made you to be. Some women (like me) are naturally not extremely feminine (I hate pink frilly things), and some men are naturally not extremely masculine (not all guys are into muscle cars and sports, for a bad example). But women should not try to act/dress/be like a man, and men should not try to act/dress/be like a woman.

That's my take on it. I sincerely don't think it means women can't wear pants, especially in our culture, since it's not only a masculine thing anymore. Cultures change. But a guy shouldn't, for example, wear a dress... but a kilt is okay, especially in Scotland.

PostPosted: **Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:34 pm**

Okay, I understand better now. Hey, mind if I pm you something? It might be too controversial to put here...

PostPosted: **Sun Sep 12, 2004 12:00 pm**

I think that it's the intent behind your actions that matters. For instance, if you are a woman and cut your hair off out of anger towards God for making you a woman, I can see it as bad. If you cut it because it's compfortable or you think it looks nice, I think it's ok. I really don't think superficial things like tattoos or earrings matter much (you don't get to take them with you) and after all, man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart.

PostPosted: **Sun Sep 12, 2004 2:17 pm**

I don't think I have much to say beyond what eirewolf said. But off topic...

kaemmerite wrote:By the way, that's one of the verses the Mennonites (I think) take very seriously.

You actually refer to Amish, Old Order Amish or Hutterites. I know; I am Mennonite.

Furthermore, the majority of the groups mentioned (I'm rusty on Old Order theology) do not support such things do to these verses. Their theologies are distinctly Christocentric, not Flat. However, in relation to their intent to live purely and simply, and their thoughts on gender roles (not as strict as most outsiders believe) they generally enforce such policies. Also, certain extremely conservative groups (not denominations) view women in pants as immodest.

PostPosted: **Sun Sep 12, 2004 11:26 pm**

We are under no moral obligation whatsoever to do or not do anything. If we had to do or not do something, then that would mean that Jesus missed something, and that His blood is only "almost enough". What you wear has no relevance whatsoever to your righteousness, only to your fashionability. (So it's perfectly fine for women to wear pants, men to wear earrings, and so on.)

Of course, given this statement, that doesn't mean that everything looks as good as everything else. Still, returning to the original post, from a traditional Scottish point of view, it's at least more appropriate for a guy to wear a mini-skirt than for a girl to wear one. (*what?!*) It's true - it is traditionally considered that longer skirts are more feminine, and shorter ones, more masculine. (That's why the kilt stops just above the knee, while traditional Scottish women's skirts to to mid-calf or to the ankle.)

PostPosted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:15 am**

Kaligraphic wrote:We are under no moral obligation whatsoever to do or not do anything. If we had to do or not do something, then that would mean that Jesus missed something, and that His blood is only "almost enough".

Except for that, as Paul puts it, who can we, who have been freed from sin, live in sin any longer? I'm not arguing that wearing pants is sin, but I am merely saying that there is accountability, right and wrong, etc.

Now, I feel relatively certain that your original statement wasn't claiming the opposite, but I did feel the need to make this clarification.

PostPosted: **Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:16 pm**

[quote="uc pseudonym"] You actually refer to Amish, Old Order Amish or Hutterites. I know]
Oh...sorry 'bout that... :sweat:

Anyway, I agree with uc psuedonym, Jesus forgives us of our sins, but our being saved is not a "license to sin," if you will, saying, "Oh, I can do whatever I want and it will be forgiven." I'm not saying that's what you meant, Kaligraphic, but it certainly did sound that way. To more fully quote what uc was talking about,

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin, how can we live in it any longer? - Romans 6:1-2

That's why I stated earlier that we are no longer under the RITUALISTIC obligations of the old law, but still stand under the MORAL ones, the most prominent of which being the Ten Commandments.

Unless you're Jewish.

PostPosted: **Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:03 am**

[quote="kaemmerite"]B

PostPosted: **Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:44 am**

I thought *everyone* knew he was a Mennonite. Huh...

Anyway, it appears that the thread has served it's purpose without everyone denegrating into an argument. Thanks everyone for being so mature!!!

I really mean that.

PostPosted: **Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:05 am**

Yes, I appreciate your friendly--or should I say mature--conversations on the matter as well

As for the Mennonite thing....never heard of 'em *shrugs*

PostPosted: **Tue Oct 12, 2004 1:25 pm**

I thought most people had... primarily due to Wierd Al's "Amish Paradise."

By this point, I had thought everyone knew I was Mennonite too. Huh...

PostPosted: **Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:15 pm**

LOL, sounds like a type of

PostPosted: **Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:16 am**

*ahem*

Let it go people. Let's not derail a thread that has already serverd it's purpose. Besides, [ sarcasm ]I'm sure UC subscribes to EVERY little detail of his denomination just like all the rest of us.[ /sarcasm ]

PostPosted: **Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:16 pm**

Also, I would point out that either pasted Google-result doesn't even accurately reflect the denomination's views. But what oldphilosopher said holds completely true, especially in the case of not needing to derail this thread any further.

To that end, let this be the last off topic post made here. Hopefully this thread will sink quietly away.

CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Need help finding some scriptures regarding gender

Need help finding some scriptures regarding gender