The things people will say

[moonshadow]

There is nothing wrong with ignoring passages we don't align with, after all, virtually everybody does this

.
There is everything wrong with that.

No it's not. Billions of people the world over somehow manage to get by and thrive just fine without the law of Moses or Paul.

To say it is "wrong" is a matter of opinion, and a notion easily challenged and defeated. It's just another social order.

[moonshadow]

". But keep in mind that the Bible is not written to the world at large, but to Gods people as instruction on godly living

But the moral law of God remains in full force for everyone.

With respect, the above two lines are in conflict.

I have no issue with the Isrealites, they are free to do their own thing, but their law should have no authority over me, unless it happens to also be a common sense law for the betterment of humanity (like not murdering).

[crfriend]

The thing is I’ve been a jeans/sneakers/pop culture t-shirt person for SO long (with the occasional fashionable sweater), I’m a bit concerned it’ll be MORE of a shock being dressed up than actually wearing a skirt. Like, my version of dressy is a plain t-shirt and slacks with a pair of dark Keens.

Here is where men tend to be their own worst enemies, and men who have never had exposure to anything but he hyper-casual realm are especially at risk.

As a backgrounder, I've worked in computing and the high-tech sector roughly all my adult life -- and it's a rather grim scene at the moment where pretty much anything goes. I was a Field Engineer (he who goes 'round fixing busted hardware for multiple customers) for several years, and managed to single-handedly lower the bar for what FEs could get away with attire-wise -- yet, with my upbringing and some knowledge of historical costume knew that I was far worse than par, and that something needed to be done to "up my game a bit".

There were a few "sparks" over several years, and sadly none of those really lit anything when it was sorely needed. So long as I was "decent" (to the letter of the law), anything went and it was, as my late ex- put it, "dumpster chic" with threadbare shirts and ratty everything. The worst thing was that I was fine with that and didn't see any problem.

Sparks, in time, and with fuel, however, tend to aggregate and that's what happened with me in the early 2000s. Thoughts from the past, general malaise about by then-current style, and some reflection of history, and general curiosity all collided at once and I constructed a skirt for myself. My late ex- regarded the matter as "curious" but didn't object overtly, and my outlook on things changed. Hers did, too -- she asked herself the usual questions that one might expect and came away from that exercise saying, "Well, there's 15 seconds I'm never going to get back." and I was on my way. It's not been "dumpster chic" (hyper-casual) since.

Formality has a place, and it can be mixed into everyday wear gracefully. "Fancy fabrics" (lace, velvet, satin) have a place -- and can be mixed into everyday wear gracefully. Yes, one will look a bit "odd" so dressed, but then again that's because those things are not commonly seen any longer -- anywhere save for "fancy dress" events, of which most of us will attend two or three of, maybe four, one of which will likely be our own funeral. Why constrain it so? I see no valid reason.

It's time to put most of the t-shirts and jeans in the skip. Keep a set around for the times when finery would get ruined -- but save it for those times. If anything, I've found that the world around us appreciates the extra beauty that we can inject into it -- if we have the guts to do so.

[Coder]

It's time to put most of the t-shirts and jeans in the skip. Keep a set around for the times when finery would get ruined -- but save it for those times. If anything, I've found that the world around us appreciates the extra beauty that we can inject into it -- if we have the guts to do so.

The thing is I like my t-shirts, and my job as a programmer doesn't require much fanciness (heck, there are professors around here that dress like bums). Which is a curious bit of self-contradiction because, obviously, skirts tend to be more formal... and I do get the notion to dress up the top half a bit more when I start considering skirted outfits. I have recently purchased a button up shirt, but am mulling it over as I don’t like how it fits - even though it is more of the casual variety (plaid, short sleeve), I feel dressy (even when in jeans). It’s also is quite sloppy even though I bought a medium - it was made by Nixon so I expected something less sloppy.

Honestly, this is something I’m just going to have to figure out, and soon. I’ve debated separating my tops by what they look best with - in that I have mediums that fit like a small, and those would be better with a skirt. I just don't want to look super formal below, and super casual on top - seems like that would look odd.

[partlyscot]

I have generally become more dressy or formal in my clothing since wearing skirts. T shirts and the like are very unisex, so by going for slightly more formal shirts, and trying to coordinate things, I'm trying to inject a note of deliberation into the look.

On the subject of what people will say, I came up with an idea that I look forward to trying out. Recently, I have spent more time out of my usual department, and quite a bit of that is in ladies wear. Next time someone asks "is that a kilt?" I'm going to say, (as deadpan as possible) "Oh no, when the guys work in this department, they like us to wear skirts" Not going to keep it up, just say "I'm kidding" and have a laugh with them. I'm curious to see what sort of look I get.

[skirtyscot]

There you go then. It's just clothes for you. Doesn't have to be anything else. I introduced me wearing a dress (on one day) and skirts (two days) to my work this week and got a null (either they really didn't notice, or were ignoring it until they could ask anyone except me) to very favourable reaction. I had talked about it with one colleague but not anyone else - I just turned up dressed as I wanted to. The dress day was more feminine than probably most here would want to go for but today's outfit, including a male shirt I've worn to work numerous times before and a knee-length green cord skirt that wasn't particularly feminine (I've attached a picture...

Three days out of five in the first week - that's pretty full-on. And they all talked to each other about it, rather than to you - what a surprise! The overall response seems very encouraging, so do you reckon you're now free to wear skirts or dresses to work whenever you want? What do you do for a living, to have such accepting colleagues and bosses?

The outfit pictured looks good.

[skirtyscot]

There is nothing wrong with ignoring passages we don't align with, after all, virtually everybody does this.

There is everything wrong with that.

I bet you do it all the time.

It is true that the ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and such were specifically ended by the sacrifice of Christ.

See what I mean? Those laws are still in the bible, but you've come up with a way to justify ignoring them.

[Coder]

It is true that the ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and such were specifically ended by the sacrifice of Christ.

See what I mean? Those laws are still in the bible, but you've come up with a way to justify ignoring them.

I don't want to drag this one out - but I'll just add that Catholics group those laws into three categories - moral laws, laws that surrounded Temple worship, and “Kingdom laws”. The B&W portion of my mind screams that this is just a bunch of rationalization, and either they all should be ignored or followed, yet the boy scout in me wants to understand the subtly/nuance/etc... that is taught. Maybe one day I'll have to research deeper to communicate effectively with my family - but I'm not going to bother until (or if) it is necessary.

That being said... having had conversations with a priest recently I'm very comfortable not worrying about the "crossdressing" provision, as my intent is not to deceive (a loaded word, not using as a pejorative), worship some greek goddess, or whatever. Yes, skirt wearing by men is not common in western culture, but whatever.

And that is the last I'll say on these topic in this thread .

[moonshadow]

Just for information. I am an ordained Ruling Elder, and ordained Deacon in the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and am currently serving an even more conservative church, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP).

Such is your right, and there is certainly nothing immoral or "wrong" with holding conservative views for your own lifestyle. But keep one thing in mind:

How conservative or even liberal one is is only a matter of perspective. To me, yes you'd qualify as conservative, but to a community like say, the Amish, you'd appear quite liberal.

Just thank your God they're not lobbying Congress to outlaw electric lighting and horseless carriages!

No... they are the "ultimate conservatives", they live their life their way, humbly, and make no effort to shove it down everyone's throat...

And they make awesome furniture too!

[Coder]

And they make awesome furniture too!

Amen to that! I got a chance to see an Amish workshop down in Indiana, and all the power tools were air powered - quite clever (though the way they achieved this was battery power from a generator).

[bobmoore]

There is nothing wrong with ignoring passages we don't align with, after all, virtually everybody does this

.
There is everything wrong with that.

No it's not. Billions of people the world over somehow manage to get by and thrive just fine without the law of Moses or Paul.

To say it is "wrong" is a matter of opinion, and a notion easily challenged and defeated. It's just another social order.

I am not talking about "billions of people the world over". I'm talking about those who profess Christianity. For them, and them only, treating the scriptures like a smorgasbord is not acceptable.

[bobmoore]

It is true that the ceremonial laws, dietary laws, and such were specifically ended by the sacrifice of Christ.

See what I mean? Those laws are still in the bible, but you've come up with a way to justify ignoring them.

No offence, but I've not "come up with" anything. What I've said is what the bible teaches. For example, it was Peter whom God showed that all foods are clean. The dietary laws served a purpose, as did the ceremonial laws. But both were mere shadows of the reality of Christ. Too many people treat diligent study as unnecessary, and prefer to get their theology from TBN or the like. That these kinds of laws were set aside is, in point of fact, elementary.

[Fred in Skirts]

What version of the Bible do you read??
There are so many that I really wonder which one is the real Word of God..

Most Christians agree that when Jesus died that was the end of the Law and the beginning of Grace.
But each person that reads the Bible, they think it is the real Word of God, some do not recognize the Law at all but only Christs death as the beginning of belief.
Who wrote the Bible you are reading from?
Why was it written? What was the reason they wrote it...
Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God???
Why are you so sure?

These are just some of the questions YOU have to answer before you can tell others what is the "real" Word of God..

Just MY $.02 worth on the subject.....

[bobmoore]

post_id=209521 time=1579959415 user_id=3895]

There is nothing wrong with ignoring passages we don't align with, after all, virtually everybody does this.

There is everything wrong with that.

I bet you do it all the time.

Is a snide remark the best you can do?

[bobmoore]

What version of the Bible do you read??
There are so many that I really wonder which one is the real Word of God..

Most Christians agree that when Jesus died that was the end of the Law and the beginning of Grace.
But each person that reads the Bible, they think it is the real Word of God, some do not recognize the Law at all but only Christs death as the beginning of belief.
Who wrote the Bible you are reading from?
Why was it written? What was the reason they wrote it...
Do you believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God???
Why are you so sure?

These are just some of the questions YOU have to answer before you can tell others what is the "real" Word of God..

Just MY $.02 worth on the subject.....

You ask serious questions, so you get serious answers.
My preferred text is the English Standard Version, though There are other very good ones. I also use the LXX which is the Greek OT translated by Jewish scholars of the Law with the greatest possible attention to accuracy. I use Hebrew texts as well, but I am much more proficient in Greek. As you may be aware, 1 Corinthians 2:14 says,
"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned". That is a stumbling block for many people because they suppose reading and understanding to be the same thing. They are not, just as believing IN God, is not the same thing as BELIEVING God. A regenerated heart is the pre-requisite for understanding. The scriptures are quite plain about that. The worldly churches of today teach that salvation is a matter of personal choice. But that contradicts the scripture that powerfully and repeatedly says that it is God, and God alone, who changes mens hearts. What part of this is so difficult to understand: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them". ( Ephesians 2:8-9 )

God sovereignty calls whomever he will, and whoever he will he passes by. That is repugnant to the nature of the fallen man, so it is very frequently denied, which changes nothing.

The scriptures are one of the means of "common grace", as is the world around us. The 1st chapter of Romans plainly says that men are without excuse. I won't quote the whole chapter. But do read it. I am under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. I am under obligation to teach accurately. James 3:1-2 offers this warning: "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body".

The world is full of scoffers, even here at the cafe, where I have been since Tom Manuel started it 20 odd years ago. But scoffers do not bother me because I am not responsible to them.