Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
Jim wrote:I'm not offended, but will offer an alternative view.
Well said, sir.
Just as with spin doctors and disinformation campaigns: Simply do your homework, verify the truth/validity of what is claimed, be a leader, wear a skirt/dress with the same freedom women wear shorts and trousers.
We're about an hour's drive north of Nashville, yet today was another normal day - I went to church in a kilt over support hose over my trainers with a white turtleneck short-sleeve top and a black short-sleeve V-neck sweater. Greeted a fair number of people, shook hands with and met some new visitors and then returned six hours later for a class, having traded in the sweater for a brown PGA sleeveless jacket with black trim and the kilt for a black miniskirt. Pretty much an ideal day. Now if some other guys were to show up kilted or skirted.....
Yes you do have the right to say what you want , you can dress the way that you want and no one should stop you
These rights are sacred and must be defended . But the entire purpose of the right is for you to enjoy your freedoms.
But If your sole purpose for exercising your right is to piss off and annoy those who disagree with you . than you are missing the whole point of having that right in the first place.
Jim wrote:I'm not offended, but will offer an alternative view.
A Christian view includes both that Jesus did fulfill the Law ("It is accomplished") and that the Law that God gave Moses was for the Jewish people, not Gentiles. So I am well aware of those parts of the Bible, but can make a good argument that they are not to guide Christians today.
I'm glad you weren't offended by my remarks Jim. It does seem however Christians such as yourself are in somewhat short supply. At any rate, I'm pretty well fixed on the conclusion I reached a decade ago. However I will share your comment with Jenn, who holds the "spirit" of Christ in her heart however is greatly troubled by what she is seeing in the name of Christ both locally and across the wires.
After a lifetime in the church and 22 years as a church leader in a variety of situations, I can tell you that the majority of ordinary Christians have very mixed and often muddled views about what constitutes The Law. And many who are adamant that we should obey their favourite rules are quite cavalier about others.
In one Bible study on Paul's letters (I can't remember which one), some of the men (nearly always men!) were expounding on the need for men to be head of the household. When I asked why they didn't follow Paul's injunction that their wives should cover their heads in church, there was no answer. Jesus summarised the law as Love God and Love People. In trying to figure out how it applies in different situations, we People of the Book (Jews, Christians and Muslims) have got awfully hot under the collar and used it to justify some very unloving actions and policies. Whilst we should have the freedom to express our views, we should be very wary of imposing them on everyone else.
oldsalt1 wrote:Moon you have been handed a few rough turns.
I wasn't handed them, I am responsible for the mistakes I've made in my life.
oldsalt1 wrote:But If your sole purpose for exercising your right is to piss off and annoy those who disagree with you . than you are missing the whole point of having that right in the first place.
Who are you referring to here? Me, Fritts, or just generally speaking?
If it's the last two then I agree. If it's me.... well I hope it's not. I hope that's not what people think when I key up.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
oldsalt1 wrote:Just generally speaking. I believe that your choices are just for your own happiness and not in anyway meant to cause irritability in others.
+1
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
If a man does not understand something, is it fair for him to criticize it? May an electrician comment negatively upon the work of a plumber? "The natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit, neither can he know then because they are spiritually discerned". In our times the bible is constantly attacked by those who have no idea whatsoever of its content. The natural man, i.e. the unsaved man, can read it as much as he likes and gain nothing from it because it is written to believers, not to the world at large. That is what it says of itself, not my opinion. Saving grace is 100% the gift of God. Men have exactly nothing to do with it. Doubt that? Look up Ephesians 2:8-9.
References to OT law are often rolled out in an attempt to make some kind of anti biblical point. But as someone pointed out Christ did not abolish the Law: he fulfilled it. Did you get that? The Law is fulfilled in him and has no authority over believers. That is not ALL the Law, but the ceremonial Law, dietary laws, and so forth were specifically done away with by Jesus. The moral law, Commandments, and so forth still have full authority, and Christians are answerable to God for them.
And do not suppose that because a man is a preacher that he is the genuine article. Many are not. Joel Osteen and Andy Stanley come to mind. A mans life is his witness. It is not what he says, but what he does. Jesus said, "Why do you call me Lord, and not do what I say?"
Several "mainstream" churches have tossed aside scripture in favor of their own desires. A bad end awaits them. See Matthew chapter 7 for details. Notice that Jesus says "I never knew you", not "I used to know you, but you fell away". They were NEVER known by him. OTOH, those whom he knows can never fall away because Jesus also says, "All that the Father gives me come to me, and NO ONE can snatch them out of my hand.
Ordained Deacon and Ruling Elder, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
BobM wrote:That is not ALL the Law, but the ceremonial Law, dietary laws, and so forth were specifically done away with by Jesus. The moral law, Commandments, and so forth still have full authority, and Christians are answerable to God for them.
All valid points, Bob, but that section specifically is the core of much theological dispute. One person says "I am guiltless for [behavior] because that law was ceremonial and is no longer relevant to those saved in Christ", while another person says "Christ never knew you because you are in violation of moral law."
What I tend to find is that legalists want to call everything moral law (apart from anything they do themselves), and apologists want to call everything ceremonial law (apart from the 10 Commandments). Can any human be trusted to speak with authority on which laws are still in effect? We're all biased and like to interpret scripture through our own lens.
Don't even get me started on the tendency of most church bodies, even conservative/evangelical groups, to double down on homosexuality but say nary a word about divorce (adultery).
Ralph wrote:
Don't even get me started on the tendency of most church bodies, even conservative/evangelical groups, to double down on homosexuality but say nary a word about divorce (adultery).
Both are explicitly mentioned in the NEW Testament, so I don't even see how Christian groups can argue on these two, and yet they do. Or they simply ignore scripture...