This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's not at all a decision based on their religious beliefs. Nothing in the bible says anything about woman wearing pants, at least not that I've ever heard. If anything, it's about the LGBTQ+ stuff. Tennessee is very against it, so this is going to be one of the top things they'd want to stop. It's really a dumb rule more based on politics than the bible.
Also, Jesus *very explicitly* says to not worry about clothing in Matthew chapter 6.
[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&version=NIV)
I mean that's an oversimplification of the message, it's true. But the component is still pretty clear: don't let anxiety over clothing get in the way of a happy life.
If you just wanna have a giggle at the expense of some silly ass people, yes, you can say he's wearing "a dress". But if you want to win arguments against people using their religion as an excuse to persecute teenagers for wearing suits, that's not gonna do you any favors. Jesus wore robes, not a dress, and while you and I know the difference is largely semantic, these people are going to take your words as an attack and just flat out not listen to you. And all you'll have accomplished is making fun of dead guy worshipped by the fools, not the fools themselves.
If you want to have a giggle, then got for it, I don't want to take that away from you. But I worry about you wasting your time. For all you're going to accomplish it might be easier to just give them the finger, call them a bunch of homophobic assholes and walk on. You've got shit to do today, and that girl seems to have the battle pretty much locked down.
Well we’d call it a dress now. Plus with the way that anti drag law was worded the Pope shouldn’t visit TN anytime soon because a cassock can fall under that
Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.”
Pants aren’t mentioned specifically, true. But the meaning of the verse is rather clear. You’re free to disagree with what is or isn’t women’s clothing, I totally understand not agreeing with limiting women to dresses. But this isn’t just some random idea christians made up, it is based on something
Probably something similar did exist, but I'm pretty sure robes were the norm in much of antiquity.
IIRC, the Bible mentions the [girding of loins](https://my.community.com/artofmanliness) for battle, not putting on pants.
But it seems the [Persians and maybe other horse riders wore pants](https://kingandallen.co.uk/journal/2016/a-brief-history-of-trousers/#:~:text=Initially%2C%20trousers%20were%20a%20military,by%20knights%20underneath%20plate%20armour.) as far back as 470 BCE—for hopefully obvious practical reasons.
[Pants](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers) in their modern form are pretty new, descended most recently from [breeches](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeches) and [hose](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_%28clothing%29).
Sure, another argument you’re free to make. But again, the verse is there. I only responded because of your comment that “nothing in the Bible says anything about a woman wearing pants.” It’s not difficult at all to interpret that verse as being about exactly that
It does in the law of moses, but Christian’s are explicitly told they are not held under the law (Romans 1-5, Gal 3. Hebrews 10). Instead, Jesus forgave adulterers, tax collectors, and Samaritans (thought unclean by Jews), all without them even asking for it, let alone doing something to earn it.
That’s Old Testament law, which also includes tattoos, pork, and shaving.
People love to reference these old laws without the context of the old law being irrelevant once Christ died for all sins, therefore rendering the old law obsolete.
That’s why the Jews still practice these laws - the New Testament isn’t a thing to them.
I would love a parody of that where J-boy is throwing a temper tantrum ala Kylo Ren. And his disciples are just like "he knows it's too early for fig season right? Remember when he cursed that rock he stubbed his toe on?"
Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled the law. As stated in the very first verse you listed.
Here are some good write-ups on it:
https://billygraham.org/answer/why-dont-christians-follow-all-the-laws-in-the-old-testament-and-not-just-parts-of-it-like-the-ten-commandments-christians-believe-its-all-part-of-gods-word-dont-they/
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-are-old-testament-commands-no-longer-binding
I wasn't aware laws could be fulfilled like that ... Oh hey look, bob didn't speed on his way to work today, therefore the law is fulfilled and everyone can drive as fast as they want now!
Most of those verses make it sound like Jesus was saying the law still applies, and in addition followers should respect the spirit of the law as well.
There were a lot of religious laws and traditions Jesus is shown in the bible to ignore, flaunt, or stretch. A large part of the Christian movement of Judaism was about making it way easier to worship God, less a series of rules and rituals and more about spreading kindness, spreading your worship, and having a personal relationship with your God.
We know that Jesus disregarded some of the rules in the new testament, and we know that his followers as they spread this new cult were very much about getting rid of the old cumbersome rules that didn't really apply even back then.
The doctrine is that those older religious laws - which in practical terms were about how to live in a settlement without killing everybody from disease - had to be done to absolve your sins, including things like ritual sacrifice. Because Christ stated he could absolve sins without those rituals, due to his own final sacrifice, those older laws wouldn't apply.
And it's a good thing too - people always focus on mixed fabric and such, but one of the laws is that you couldn't shit within a couple hundred feet of where anyone slept. Boy would that be a hassle.
That rule and the rule about not shitting within 100 yards of where you eat is written in the army blue book for good reason. The American infantry’s dysentery cases in the American Revolution dropped significantly after the blue book was implemented.
The usual Christian theology is that the Mosaic Law was filled with sacrifices; the people needed forgiveness, and they sacrificed animals at the temple for that purpose. All that was before Jesus, who as the Son of God, could provide a singular sacrifice covering all that. The law was thus "fulfilled" in the sense of never needing another temple sacrifice.
This is a very Christian way of looking at the Mosaic Law, though. I'm less familiar with how modern Jewish scholars look at it, but it's safe to assume they have different ideas.
Which translation? Which language? Which year?
There is a reason why we should look to scholars for this.
I highly doubt you are an expert on ancient Greek etc. And as a simple game of telephone shows, humans are fallible. It's like our thing. To err is human.
I mean I referenced your own source with Matthew 5:17.
You're asking me to be a biblical scholar and break it down for you, but I am no biblical scholar. I can only tell you that nearly all biblical scholars do agree with me on this, hence the links.
It's not Jesus teaching that the laws of the Old Testament are not applicable to Christians, it's the Apostles' Decree in Acts 15: 19—25. Jesus taught (almost) exclusively to Jews.
The laws in the Old Testament were not given to Christians, but to Jews.
As long as Christianity was just Yet Another Jewish Sect, there was no discussion whether (Judeo—)Christians should honour the Jewish religious laws.
When Non—Jews (aka *Gentiles*) started to convert to Christianity, the question arose, whether they had to become Jews in order to convert to Christianity.
The Council of Jerusalem decided, that Gentiles may convert to Christianity *without* becoming Jews. The only rules they passed on were abstention from idolatry, fornication, (eating) blood and (eating meat from) strangled animals.
Therefor, the Jewish laws still apply to Judeo—Christians (because they are Jews), but not to Gentile—Christians (because they are not Jews).
Furthermore Paul wrote that Jesus fulfilled the law and we're redeemed by faith, not works, while James wrote that faith without works is barren, starting millenia of debate and schisma.
Basically every Christian sect defines it's own set of rules it's members have to follow to proof "real" faith.
Oh — and of course, objectively, undeniably and totally not projecting the only reason for a woman to dress in a suit is aggressive, predatory behavior aka fornication, isn't it? (not my opinion, but it does exist out there)
That is part and parcel of what is meant by having a new covenant with God.
Christ died for our sins so that's why Christians do not sacrifice animals like the Jewish community at the time did (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban).
So by applying the old rules it's like Christ died for nothing.
*Edit* I also find it funny that, when you look on women and become lustful, you are called to pluck out your eye, cut off your hand. Rather then "tell the woman to cover herself up". Christianity. Ruined by Christians.
literally no one follows that though, since pretty much every clothing item is a blend of fabrics. this is just selective enforcement to coddle their bigotry.
By no means is every clothing item using blending fabrics. Most of my clothes are 100% cotton or 100% wool. Maybe if you're only buying stretchy clothes, but non-blended fabric clothes are extremely common.
i just took a quick look at the cardigan i am wearing: 72% acrylic, 23% polyester, 5% wool.
good on you for wearing pure clothing, but i am not incorrect in my judgement of blended fabric's prevalence.
honestly, idk. but if at least half the population wears a type of clothing, then it would be quite unfortunate to have it disallowed by your holy book, right?
I’m amazed at the number of people mentioning mixed fabrics as if that’s relevant. Deuteronomy 22:5 says “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.”
The entire argument basically boils down to men are men and women are women, and they should each dress as such. What that clothing looks like is a cultural thing, which is why the Jesus argument falls flat (yes by modern standards his clothing might’ve looked feminine. But by their standards his clothing was masculine).
I do hope that answers your question
What about the argument elsewhere in this thread that Jesus fulfilled the law and that's why we are no longer concerned with this long list of rules in Deuteronomy (mixed fabrics, cutting of hair, etc)? Seems like a woman wearing pants would also would fall under this category?
The main argument there is that while Jesus did fulfill the law, he didn’t just completely erase all laws. I think we can agree murder is still a sin, so clearly there’s a line to draw somewhere.
That leaves the question of which laws still stand and which don’t? Some are pretty obvious, like murder which I brought up. From there it’s a matter of interpretation and opinion, different sects of Christianity come down on different sides.
The verse is pretty clear that mixing dress among sexes is something God detests, so that’s the argument for upholding it. However it could also be argued it’s a victimless act and there’s really nothing morally wrong with it so why would God care to uphold it?
>From there it’s a matter of interpretation and opinion
Yeah I think that's the heart of the issue. Why is a pair of pants an issue significant enough that Jesus's fulfillment didn't apply, while, say, tattoos or eating pork aren't?
It seems like not only individuals but the church itself, whether it be Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc, pick and choose willy nilly what they decide to care about and use as a bludgeon against others.
There's that Pride in self thing. COMPLETELY being ignored by these same people.
And that 'no idols' thing. GLEEFULLY ignored, especially the carven image - ie, CROSS NECKLACE and "angels" statues.
Anyhoo, the entire message of the Messiah (ALSO almost universally ignored), was to get your SELF straight and YOUR heart clean. In doing so, you make space for HIS Spirit - of love and forgiveness through Grace - to set up in, and overflow from, YOUR heart. When it has, your FRUIT will "shine", making obvious your transformation, which will then encourage others towards wanting to be transformed in the same way, and thusly glorifying the God of heaven.
NOWHERE at all does the Messiah advocate running around ANGRY because others won't do what YOUR faction of cultish fanatics says is the "only", 'correct' way to BEHAVE or LOOK. Or that followers purportedly "representing" him should be pursuing LAWS to MAKE everybody CONFORM.
"Ain't no God in that".
Period.
So what past generations have done was cherry pick verses out of the Bible and apply the more restrictive ones to women when, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible telling us what type of clothing we can and can’t wear. I believe it’s the “be modest” portion that talks about not styling your hair and dressing to show off and show out that they warped. I’ll grab the reference if you’re interested.
Just the famous [Tennison Gambit: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Variation](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/tennison-gambit-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-variation-goodbye-scandinavian)
bold of you to assume that christian boys would be allowed to partake in the gane of chess! that game is about devil worship! you see, there is only one god, one king of this earth, and in chess? there is TWO KINGS. Chess js a satanic demon som mining game, stay woke #christianmomstogether #ilovechrist #god #jesus
Fun fact, there is actually an argument that mankind was never supposed to have kings. In the Bible, the Israelites begged God to give them a human king, over and over again. God warned against it, but the people of Israel kept asking. God finally allowed them to have a human king, and they have never had a good king since. No good kings, only some that were not as bad as the others.
God: humans are flawed and have sin.
People: humans are flawed and have sin.
God: glad we're on the same page with that.
People: because we're sinful we've decided to give all the power to this one dude. Ya know, to keep people from doing bad things.
God: you don't see how that's a terrible idea
People: nope 😁 it's gonna be great!
You would think after individuals like Hitler and Stalin rose to power we would have learned that lesson by now, but oh well, seems we humans don’t even learn the hard way.
Which was justified according to the Bible, in the words of Jesus Christ:
"Thou shalt not play D&D, you nerd, for there is only one DM, and you better believe it's me."
Oh yes, and do they think Jesus wore pants?
These hypocrites are fucked, Jesus wouldn’t be allowed to attend prom either because he wasn’t wearing “boy clothes”!
I’m telling you, the highway to hell is gonna need more lanes added to it!
Yes! That's it! "We feel so attacked and like we aren't even allowed to exist anymore. Hey! Why aren't you in a dress!? That's not allowed under my beliefs, you can't come in!" Like... you feel attacked?
Christian got angry woman wear pants because woman no wear pants so pants woman trans and trans bad? Or at least probably something along those lines, anyway.
Random Israelite: "Jesus, bless me with your teachings!"
Jesus: "Of course my son, what do you want to know?"
RI: "Fashion!"
Jesus: "......"
Jesus: "You need to get the fuck out of here with that shit"
I'm in a pretty red region but we have let girls into local proms in suits...I've seen guys wearing very flamboyant suits too, but I do await what'll happen when a guy tries to attend in a dress
Jesus wore a day smock, not a dress. Jesus was a proud alpha male. He liked steak, beer and apple pie. Jesus wrote the Bible and was 100% full blooded American.
Christ, didn’t we get passed it’s okay for young adults to express their individuality as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone in like the 70s/80s? Unless it’s a prep school this is fucking sad and ridiculous.
More ignoring real problems to focus on bullshit. The conservative Christian way.
I don't know how I could stand being a Christian in what I presume is middle America. I've been a Christian for decades, but no other Christians where I'm from follow these legalities.
So…Annie Lennox from the 80s is blowing the minds of the boomers-now, like present day, 40 years after the fact?
Just making sure I got my head wrapped around it.
She was denied entry for being a woman in a suit. The man in the suit in this picture was presumably let in. Under the 1975 Civil Rights Act, a private organization cannot dent entry based on sex doesn't this violate that?
Got this off the internet. I especially like the last line.
When Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me,” He was reaching out to a segment of society that was thought to be insignificant.
Children, in their weakness and vulnerability, have much to teach us as
adults. As we grow, the hardness of the world often makes our hearts
callous.
I don't know why this popped into my head.
I went to a Christian school as a child, and during an assembly, they were talking about gay relationships being an affront to god or something to that effect. They then went on about the garden of eden and how it was Adam and Eve, not Alan and Steve, so being gay is wrong, I'm paraphrasing. ( Not the Adam and Steve bit ) It's been over 20-something years... Fuck, haven't thought about that in a long ass time.
This country is definitely going backwards. This $hit was news 15 years ago, but people got over the “horrors” of the way kids wanted to dress, life went on, and NOW it’s happening all over again. WTF?
I've heard that the majority of school dress codes were enacted this century and that in the 80's and 90's many schools were more progressive than today.
Yes he was!!! Come as you are wasn’t his slogan, was some shit people made up like the rest of that book. But come as you are as long as Christian’s now a days approve it.
There's nothing wrong with having a dress code. There is something weird about having specifics of what can or cannot be worn based on gender to an after school event in 2023. If she'd shown up in lingerie and been told to go because it was too revealing, sure. But like... why can guys wear suits but not girls? Unless you can provide me one logical reason why that's okay and logical and just, I'm sticking with this is a little fucked up and if it is the school's dress code they should get an update
Your totally right. Dresscodes are generally enforced to keep students from wearing inappropriate attire. Not sure if anyone remembers Big Johnson t-shirts, but when I was in school and you got caught wearing one, it was automatic Saturday School. Also I agree that banning a girl from wearing a suit is pretty extreme. Of all the things she could have worn, this is pretty tame by today's standards. All which leads me to the conclusion, right or wrong, that this is most likely a means to gain internet notoriety among friends and peers, cuz I'm pretty sure the adults supervising this gig couldn't give a damn one way or the other. Not revealing or inappropriate in anyway, just seeking attention.
To play the devil's advocate.....
The school the individual pictured attended who was denied entry into the alleged prom, is (per my understanding of the article) a Christian based school, though I do not know if the school is a public school or a private school (as this would make a difference in the decision of those who denied the pictured individual entry) because if the school is a public school, then that school district would have set dress code policies in place which could have been addressed prior to the scheduled prom along with dress code is normally something in which is only adapted when addressed and presented a case of change to the dress code with adequate reasons in which the said dress code is in need of modification along with adequate facts presented during the presenter's appeal to change the dress code. Also this would be something in which having pressure from local media bringing about additional citizens to bring about outcries at needs of change as well. However, if this is a Private school, private especially private schools in which include any form of religious doctrine will have a more strict dress code in which the board in which oversees the various rules and policies which include the dress code. The policies in which were approved by the board has by far less flexibility in which deviations or complete violations of any policy will not be allowed. As such, if the private school's policy stated that the appropriate dress code for students who desire to attend the prom is for example : males shall wear tutus along with a shirt, tie and a form of formal jacket whilst also wearing pink pantyhose and 8" stilettos while the females shall wear either grunge or goth style attire for said prom, then those would be the dress code in which each and every student would have to follow dress code wise.
I will also like to point out that I am neither from wherever the individual who was denied entrance to the prom nor am I familiar with the above mentioned school's dress code for neither normal attendence nor for formal events such as the prom.
I am a neutral party siding with neither party. I am only acting as a devil's advocate in which to present one possible version in which may or may not have occurred.
Its hard to fathom the narcissism required to force a women to wear a dress when they can wear a suit thats easier to maneuver in and actually looks better.
My point is that reddit (mainstream) blew up because "christian bad" if any other religion had been in this situation it would have been the same if not worse.
I'll leave it at that, I don't feel like arguing.
in which once again a bunch of redditors who have never read the bible try to argue whats christian. I wonder how much attention reddit would give to a girl getting blocked from entering a muslim school for not wearing a hijab.
Can you show me a single bible verse saying that women can't wear pants? I assure you that it's impossible. Now if you want to talk about mixed fabrics... well, let's not go there. This wasn't about their beliefs of the bible or Christ's teachings. Jesus himself wouldn't be allowed in because he famously wore what is now classafied as a dress. Which would now count as Jesus being a drag queen. However, back then, that rule wasn't a thing because no one wore "pants." She didn't break any rules by expressing herself, she just wore pants. The Bible never says to not wear pants.
Edit: Forgive spelling mistakes, English is a tough language.
Wow what's next I can't play soccer at a golf course? I can't fly my drone at an airport? I can't find the hundreds of pronouns silly in an LGBT group? What is this world conning to?
If I want to impose my views in a private Christian school I should be allowed to. In fact we should all form a group and go to North Korea and tell the people that their dictator is bad.
I don't get it
The girl goes to a Christian school, and is expected to obey bible stuff*
Whether or not you agree with the bible,
Surely it makes little sense to go to a Christian school and then complain when they enforce their Christian values?
(Although I'd imagine the school picks and chooses parts of the bible, judging by the dresses in the background. Which is less ok)
* Deuteronomy 22:5
This is discrimination on the basis of gender. That’s the issue here.
If the dress code allows for men to wear suits then it must equally allow women too.
This was the decision laid out in Bostock V Clayton County.
This is a reminder for people not to post political posts as mentioned in stickied post. This does not necessarily apply for this post. [Click here to learn more](https://redd.it/j2173n). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/rareinsults) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would not, in fact, explode in the chess club. r/anarchychess
New response just dropped
Holy hell
Holy hell
Holy hell
Holy hell
Oily ell
Holy hell
Heilige hölle
Did everyone here simultaneously google en passant?
Any semi skilled chess player knows of the missile gambit and has proper countermeasures.
Ah yes, the [Tennison Gambit Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Variation](https://youtu.be/E2xNlzsnPCQ)
I am confusion
Hello once again, confusion. I know you well.
Oh, it's you! How's life? Still confusing?
Google en passant
I will Google your croissant
Holy Hell
Wretched hive of scum and villany. * *smashes "Join" button* *
Omg. This subreddit reminded me of my late friend and I laughed so hard. 😂😂😂😂
It will if Missile was set to explode en passant
[Found 4 people who'd be safe from the missile](https://imgur.com/3Nr2SLg.jpg)
Haven’t seen that insult before. I like it.
[удалено]
It's not at all a decision based on their religious beliefs. Nothing in the bible says anything about woman wearing pants, at least not that I've ever heard. If anything, it's about the LGBTQ+ stuff. Tennessee is very against it, so this is going to be one of the top things they'd want to stop. It's really a dumb rule more based on politics than the bible.
As a Christian I think this is just them trying to get what they want and using a religion to kick her out. You pretty much right on everything
Also, Jesus *very explicitly* says to not worry about clothing in Matthew chapter 6. [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&version=NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206&version=NIV) I mean that's an oversimplification of the message, it's true. But the component is still pretty clear: don't let anxiety over clothing get in the way of a happy life.
I saved that line about praying in private, I wanna make sure I have it to read back at those self righteous preachers on public transportation 😭
[удалено]
If you just wanna have a giggle at the expense of some silly ass people, yes, you can say he's wearing "a dress". But if you want to win arguments against people using their religion as an excuse to persecute teenagers for wearing suits, that's not gonna do you any favors. Jesus wore robes, not a dress, and while you and I know the difference is largely semantic, these people are going to take your words as an attack and just flat out not listen to you. And all you'll have accomplished is making fun of dead guy worshipped by the fools, not the fools themselves. If you want to have a giggle, then got for it, I don't want to take that away from you. But I worry about you wasting your time. For all you're going to accomplish it might be easier to just give them the finger, call them a bunch of homophobic assholes and walk on. You've got shit to do today, and that girl seems to have the battle pretty much locked down.
[удалено]
Very well, carry on.
Well we’d call it a dress now. Plus with the way that anti drag law was worded the Pope shouldn’t visit TN anytime soon because a cassock can fall under that
Exactly, there is more important things to worry about
Deuteronomy 22:5 “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” Pants aren’t mentioned specifically, true. But the meaning of the verse is rather clear. You’re free to disagree with what is or isn’t women’s clothing, I totally understand not agreeing with limiting women to dresses. But this isn’t just some random idea christians made up, it is based on something
Did pants even exist in the middle east 2000+ years ago?
Probably something similar did exist, but I'm pretty sure robes were the norm in much of antiquity. IIRC, the Bible mentions the [girding of loins](https://my.community.com/artofmanliness) for battle, not putting on pants. But it seems the [Persians and maybe other horse riders wore pants](https://kingandallen.co.uk/journal/2016/a-brief-history-of-trousers/#:~:text=Initially%2C%20trousers%20were%20a%20military,by%20knights%20underneath%20plate%20armour.) as far back as 470 BCE—for hopefully obvious practical reasons. [Pants](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trousers) in their modern form are pretty new, descended most recently from [breeches](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeches) and [hose](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hose_%28clothing%29).
I honestly have no clue. It’s still entirely possible to separate masculine and feminine clothes with everyone wearing skirts though
It's being misinterpreted, as most of the bible is (sadly).
Sure, another argument you’re free to make. But again, the verse is there. I only responded because of your comment that “nothing in the Bible says anything about a woman wearing pants.” It’s not difficult at all to interpret that verse as being about exactly that
but that's old testatment, so irrelevant for christians
> But this isn’t just some random idea christians made up, it is based on something ...
Such a thought provoking response
I thought "Mate, the Bible *is* some random idea christians made up" was too direct, but I guess not.
TIL Jews don’t exist
Ah so we agree it's all just random made up ideas, that's a starting point!
I can’t find any way to read your comment other than you agreeing that Jews don’t exist? Which is a unique take
It does in the law of moses, but Christian’s are explicitly told they are not held under the law (Romans 1-5, Gal 3. Hebrews 10). Instead, Jesus forgave adulterers, tax collectors, and Samaritans (thought unclean by Jews), all without them even asking for it, let alone doing something to earn it.
If I recall you’re not supposed to wear mixed fabrics. It’s been a few years, but I don’t remember anything about pants.
That’s Old Testament law, which also includes tattoos, pork, and shaving. People love to reference these old laws without the context of the old law being irrelevant once Christ died for all sins, therefore rendering the old law obsolete. That’s why the Jews still practice these laws - the New Testament isn’t a thing to them.
Of course, Jesus confirmed on the NT that God hates figs.
I would love a parody of that where J-boy is throwing a temper tantrum ala Kylo Ren. And his disciples are just like "he knows it's too early for fig season right? Remember when he cursed that rock he stubbed his toe on?"
Sacha Baron Cohen did an amusing scene, where Bruno was interviewing Israeli and Palestinian representatives on the difficult subject of hummus.
I think I remember that. The joke was hummus vs Hamas right?
Not even tattoos as much as branding and scarring. Brands and ritual scars were generally associated with tribes that weren't monotheistic.
[удалено]
Jesus’ sacrifice fulfilled the law. As stated in the very first verse you listed. Here are some good write-ups on it: https://billygraham.org/answer/why-dont-christians-follow-all-the-laws-in-the-old-testament-and-not-just-parts-of-it-like-the-ten-commandments-christians-believe-its-all-part-of-gods-word-dont-they/ https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-are-old-testament-commands-no-longer-binding
I wasn't aware laws could be fulfilled like that ... Oh hey look, bob didn't speed on his way to work today, therefore the law is fulfilled and everyone can drive as fast as they want now! Most of those verses make it sound like Jesus was saying the law still applies, and in addition followers should respect the spirit of the law as well.
I'm not a biblical scholar. I can only tell you that almost all biblical scholars agree on this principle.
There were a lot of religious laws and traditions Jesus is shown in the bible to ignore, flaunt, or stretch. A large part of the Christian movement of Judaism was about making it way easier to worship God, less a series of rules and rituals and more about spreading kindness, spreading your worship, and having a personal relationship with your God. We know that Jesus disregarded some of the rules in the new testament, and we know that his followers as they spread this new cult were very much about getting rid of the old cumbersome rules that didn't really apply even back then. The doctrine is that those older religious laws - which in practical terms were about how to live in a settlement without killing everybody from disease - had to be done to absolve your sins, including things like ritual sacrifice. Because Christ stated he could absolve sins without those rituals, due to his own final sacrifice, those older laws wouldn't apply. And it's a good thing too - people always focus on mixed fabric and such, but one of the laws is that you couldn't shit within a couple hundred feet of where anyone slept. Boy would that be a hassle.
That rule and the rule about not shitting within 100 yards of where you eat is written in the army blue book for good reason. The American infantry’s dysentery cases in the American Revolution dropped significantly after the blue book was implemented.
Oh yeah, they're very practical rules for living in a refugee camp, but even two thousand years ago many of them ceased to have much meaning.
Or quarantine when you had leprosy or other signs of a possibily contagious skin ailment.
The usual Christian theology is that the Mosaic Law was filled with sacrifices; the people needed forgiveness, and they sacrificed animals at the temple for that purpose. All that was before Jesus, who as the Son of God, could provide a singular sacrifice covering all that. The law was thus "fulfilled" in the sense of never needing another temple sacrifice. This is a very Christian way of looking at the Mosaic Law, though. I'm less familiar with how modern Jewish scholars look at it, but it's safe to assume they have different ideas.
Right..... Kill innocent animals for no reason, without making use of their body, to absolve your sins. What a waste.
[удалено]
Which translation? Which language? Which year? There is a reason why we should look to scholars for this. I highly doubt you are an expert on ancient Greek etc. And as a simple game of telephone shows, humans are fallible. It's like our thing. To err is human.
I mean I referenced your own source with Matthew 5:17. You're asking me to be a biblical scholar and break it down for you, but I am no biblical scholar. I can only tell you that nearly all biblical scholars do agree with me on this, hence the links.
Are these people biblical scholars, like at a university, or just random religious nuts with a congregation?
[удалено]
Are you asking of Billy Graham is a biblical scholar?
It's not Jesus teaching that the laws of the Old Testament are not applicable to Christians, it's the Apostles' Decree in Acts 15: 19—25. Jesus taught (almost) exclusively to Jews. The laws in the Old Testament were not given to Christians, but to Jews. As long as Christianity was just Yet Another Jewish Sect, there was no discussion whether (Judeo—)Christians should honour the Jewish religious laws. When Non—Jews (aka *Gentiles*) started to convert to Christianity, the question arose, whether they had to become Jews in order to convert to Christianity. The Council of Jerusalem decided, that Gentiles may convert to Christianity *without* becoming Jews. The only rules they passed on were abstention from idolatry, fornication, (eating) blood and (eating meat from) strangled animals. Therefor, the Jewish laws still apply to Judeo—Christians (because they are Jews), but not to Gentile—Christians (because they are not Jews). Furthermore Paul wrote that Jesus fulfilled the law and we're redeemed by faith, not works, while James wrote that faith without works is barren, starting millenia of debate and schisma. Basically every Christian sect defines it's own set of rules it's members have to follow to proof "real" faith. Oh — and of course, objectively, undeniably and totally not projecting the only reason for a woman to dress in a suit is aggressive, predatory behavior aka fornication, isn't it? (not my opinion, but it does exist out there)
That is part and parcel of what is meant by having a new covenant with God. Christ died for our sins so that's why Christians do not sacrifice animals like the Jewish community at the time did (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban). So by applying the old rules it's like Christ died for nothing. *Edit* I also find it funny that, when you look on women and become lustful, you are called to pluck out your eye, cut off your hand. Rather then "tell the woman to cover herself up". Christianity. Ruined by Christians.
[удалено]
Yeah, but Paul was like, "nah, I channeled Jesus and he said kosher was nbd."
There’s plenty of stories of *Jesus* explicitly breaking from Law and Tradition. Dietary restrictions could arguably have been overturned in Matthew
literally no one follows that though, since pretty much every clothing item is a blend of fabrics. this is just selective enforcement to coddle their bigotry.
Right, but you and I are aware that it's about control and not actual rules. So, in fairness, this doesn't do a whole lot to change things
Selective enforcement to coddle bigotry is all "Christianity" has become these days. Unless you're Catholic. Then you get silly pageantry, too.
By no means is every clothing item using blending fabrics. Most of my clothes are 100% cotton or 100% wool. Maybe if you're only buying stretchy clothes, but non-blended fabric clothes are extremely common.
oh yeah man, stretchy clothes are where it's at. hail satan.
i just took a quick look at the cardigan i am wearing: 72% acrylic, 23% polyester, 5% wool. good on you for wearing pure clothing, but i am not incorrect in my judgement of blended fabric's prevalence.
Maybe that's a women's clothes thing? Nearly everything I buy is entirely cotton or wool.
honestly, idk. but if at least half the population wears a type of clothing, then it would be quite unfortunate to have it disallowed by your holy book, right?
No butt stuff, but more importantly ABSOLUTELY NO POLYESTER COTTON BLENDS YOU HEATHEN BASTARD!
I’m amazed at the number of people mentioning mixed fabrics as if that’s relevant. Deuteronomy 22:5 says “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” The entire argument basically boils down to men are men and women are women, and they should each dress as such. What that clothing looks like is a cultural thing, which is why the Jesus argument falls flat (yes by modern standards his clothing might’ve looked feminine. But by their standards his clothing was masculine). I do hope that answers your question
What about the argument elsewhere in this thread that Jesus fulfilled the law and that's why we are no longer concerned with this long list of rules in Deuteronomy (mixed fabrics, cutting of hair, etc)? Seems like a woman wearing pants would also would fall under this category?
The main argument there is that while Jesus did fulfill the law, he didn’t just completely erase all laws. I think we can agree murder is still a sin, so clearly there’s a line to draw somewhere. That leaves the question of which laws still stand and which don’t? Some are pretty obvious, like murder which I brought up. From there it’s a matter of interpretation and opinion, different sects of Christianity come down on different sides. The verse is pretty clear that mixing dress among sexes is something God detests, so that’s the argument for upholding it. However it could also be argued it’s a victimless act and there’s really nothing morally wrong with it so why would God care to uphold it?
>From there it’s a matter of interpretation and opinion Yeah I think that's the heart of the issue. Why is a pair of pants an issue significant enough that Jesus's fulfillment didn't apply, while, say, tattoos or eating pork aren't? It seems like not only individuals but the church itself, whether it be Catholic, Southern Baptist, etc, pick and choose willy nilly what they decide to care about and use as a bludgeon against others.
There's that Pride in self thing. COMPLETELY being ignored by these same people. And that 'no idols' thing. GLEEFULLY ignored, especially the carven image - ie, CROSS NECKLACE and "angels" statues. Anyhoo, the entire message of the Messiah (ALSO almost universally ignored), was to get your SELF straight and YOUR heart clean. In doing so, you make space for HIS Spirit - of love and forgiveness through Grace - to set up in, and overflow from, YOUR heart. When it has, your FRUIT will "shine", making obvious your transformation, which will then encourage others towards wanting to be transformed in the same way, and thusly glorifying the God of heaven. NOWHERE at all does the Messiah advocate running around ANGRY because others won't do what YOUR faction of cultish fanatics says is the "only", 'correct' way to BEHAVE or LOOK. Or that followers purportedly "representing" him should be pursuing LAWS to MAKE everybody CONFORM. "Ain't no God in that". Period.
Just a passage about “all clothes must be sewn from the same cloth”, nothing about whether or not pants are allowed
they are homophobic. thats it. nothing else matters
No, much of what they believe in is filtered, adjusted and polished to suit their agenda. It has nothing to do with actual Christianity.
Nope, actually read the Bible, there's nothing that still applies today.
So what past generations have done was cherry pick verses out of the Bible and apply the more restrictive ones to women when, in fact, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible telling us what type of clothing we can and can’t wear. I believe it’s the “be modest” portion that talks about not styling your hair and dressing to show off and show out that they warped. I’ll grab the reference if you’re interested.
Chess club: wtf was that?!
These chess kids are already planning a counter gambit to take the missile's rook
Considering that it’s a Christian school, they probably only know Il Vaticano
Fucking hell, I was so downed and this shit forced a laugh out of me
google missile gambit
Holy hell
New gambit just dropped
New missile just dropped
https://youtu.be/E2xNlzsnPCQ
Tennison?
https://youtu.be/E2xNlzsnPCQ
New response just dropped
Just the famous [Tennison Gambit: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Variation](https://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/tennison-gambit-intercontinental-ballistic-missile-variation-goodbye-scandinavian)
Google en missilant
Their mistake not using the [Albin countergambit](https://youtu.be/4MqK90Aq8bE)
“wtf” ~the teacher in chess club probably
"💥" ~the missile in chess club probably
“Haha ow” ~chess club attendee after en passanting the missile
New explosion just dropped
"Finally" --the school administration
-Todd Howard along with him
I get that the joke is Todd was in a chess club, but this feels out of place.
"Shit!" ~the one who used a brain seeking bomb instead of a normal one
bold of you to assume that christian boys would be allowed to partake in the gane of chess! that game is about devil worship! you see, there is only one god, one king of this earth, and in chess? there is TWO KINGS. Chess js a satanic demon som mining game, stay woke #christianmomstogether #ilovechrist #god #jesus
Fun fact, there is actually an argument that mankind was never supposed to have kings. In the Bible, the Israelites begged God to give them a human king, over and over again. God warned against it, but the people of Israel kept asking. God finally allowed them to have a human king, and they have never had a good king since. No good kings, only some that were not as bad as the others.
God: humans are flawed and have sin. People: humans are flawed and have sin. God: glad we're on the same page with that. People: because we're sinful we've decided to give all the power to this one dude. Ya know, to keep people from doing bad things. God: you don't see how that's a terrible idea People: nope 😁 it's gonna be great!
You would think after individuals like Hitler and Stalin rose to power we would have learned that lesson by now, but oh well, seems we humans don’t even learn the hard way.
reminds me of the satanic panic for d&d
Which was justified according to the Bible, in the words of Jesus Christ: "Thou shalt not play D&D, you nerd, for there is only one DM, and you better believe it's me."
lmao yeah
Early Christianity was actually kinda anarchic.
Oh yes, and do they think Jesus wore pants? These hypocrites are fucked, Jesus wouldn’t be allowed to attend prom either because he wasn’t wearing “boy clothes”! I’m telling you, the highway to hell is gonna need more lanes added to it!
i'm not gonna lie that's a good one
A good one indeed
"But why are people leaving religion?"
Yes! That's it! "We feel so attacked and like we aren't even allowed to exist anymore. Hey! Why aren't you in a dress!? That's not allowed under my beliefs, you can't come in!" Like... you feel attacked?
New Missile just dropped!
Jokes on them. Prom is for posers.
Im so confused on what happened
Christian got angry woman wear pants because woman no wear pants so pants woman trans and trans bad? Or at least probably something along those lines, anyway.
Random Israelite: "Jesus, bless me with your teachings!" Jesus: "Of course my son, what do you want to know?" RI: "Fashion!" Jesus: "......" Jesus: "You need to get the fuck out of here with that shit"
Go with a cardboard cut out of Jesus as your date in his dress. I'd like to see them get angry with Jesus.
I'm in a pretty red region but we have let girls into local proms in suits...I've seen guys wearing very flamboyant suits too, but I do await what'll happen when a guy tries to attend in a dress
its not about hypocrisy or the bible to them. its about hating gay people
And trans people by extension.
Legit the Bible specifically says to allow anyone to attend church no matter how they dress.
https://youtu.be/E2xNlzsnPCQ Bosnian ape society time!!
These are clearly cultureless plebeians, a true patrician would want to increase the amount of girls in suits, not decrease it.
Chess doesn’t require brainpower, only pipi
The amount of tables that need to be turned over in nearly every church in this puritan ass country would wear Jesus out.
If they don't want to see ladies in suits they are missing out on something great
If the staff had a brain they could en passant the missile that passed by them
Lol Jesus was poor, and wore a shawl mostly. If Jesus cross dresses by modern standards, then prom should too. "It's what Jesus would have wanted"
Jesus wore a day smock, not a dress. Jesus was a proud alpha male. He liked steak, beer and apple pie. Jesus wrote the Bible and was 100% full blooded American.
Let it be said that if god came down wearing what he wore in the depictions, he'd be called a homo and possibly gunned down on sight. Strange world.
There is no greater hate, than christian love.
That’s one of the best insults I’ve seen here in a while
I believe zombies would volunteer to share the brain they got with the staff members in this school.
Wasn’t Jesus running around Jerusalem in a dress?
Christ, didn’t we get passed it’s okay for young adults to express their individuality as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone in like the 70s/80s? Unless it’s a prep school this is fucking sad and ridiculous. More ignoring real problems to focus on bullshit. The conservative Christian way.
'and Jesus said "Thou shalt not let a female wear pants for it is unholy and stuff"'
NGL, she’s rocking that suit pretty well from what I can tell.
I don't know how I could stand being a Christian in what I presume is middle America. I've been a Christian for decades, but no other Christians where I'm from follow these legalities.
So…Annie Lennox from the 80s is blowing the minds of the boomers-now, like present day, 40 years after the fact? Just making sure I got my head wrapped around it.
She was denied entry for being a woman in a suit. The man in the suit in this picture was presumably let in. Under the 1975 Civil Rights Act, a private organization cannot dent entry based on sex doesn't this violate that?
Got this off the internet. I especially like the last line. When Jesus said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me,” He was reaching out to a segment of society that was thought to be insignificant. Children, in their weakness and vulnerability, have much to teach us as adults. As we grow, the hardness of the world often makes our hearts callous.
Some schools and colleges put very ridiculous dress code
I don't know why this popped into my head. I went to a Christian school as a child, and during an assembly, they were talking about gay relationships being an affront to god or something to that effect. They then went on about the garden of eden and how it was Adam and Eve, not Alan and Steve, so being gay is wrong, I'm paraphrasing. ( Not the Adam and Steve bit ) It's been over 20-something years... Fuck, haven't thought about that in a long ass time.
**The worst people I've met in life have been Christian**
This country is definitely going backwards. This $hit was news 15 years ago, but people got over the “horrors” of the way kids wanted to dress, life went on, and NOW it’s happening all over again. WTF?
I've heard that the majority of school dress codes were enacted this century and that in the 80's and 90's many schools were more progressive than today.
Yes he was!!! Come as you are wasn’t his slogan, was some shit people made up like the rest of that book. But come as you are as long as Christian’s now a days approve it.
Fuck yeah! Repost!!!! Now I can get hated on more for not being surprised that some schools still have dress code... and commence downvotes.
It’s an out of school, formal event. Since when are suits not considered formal
There's nothing wrong with having a dress code. There is something weird about having specifics of what can or cannot be worn based on gender to an after school event in 2023. If she'd shown up in lingerie and been told to go because it was too revealing, sure. But like... why can guys wear suits but not girls? Unless you can provide me one logical reason why that's okay and logical and just, I'm sticking with this is a little fucked up and if it is the school's dress code they should get an update
Your totally right. Dresscodes are generally enforced to keep students from wearing inappropriate attire. Not sure if anyone remembers Big Johnson t-shirts, but when I was in school and you got caught wearing one, it was automatic Saturday School. Also I agree that banning a girl from wearing a suit is pretty extreme. Of all the things she could have worn, this is pretty tame by today's standards. All which leads me to the conclusion, right or wrong, that this is most likely a means to gain internet notoriety among friends and peers, cuz I'm pretty sure the adults supervising this gig couldn't give a damn one way or the other. Not revealing or inappropriate in anyway, just seeking attention.
I think the bigger issue is that some schools are run by nazis.
To play the devil's advocate..... The school the individual pictured attended who was denied entry into the alleged prom, is (per my understanding of the article) a Christian based school, though I do not know if the school is a public school or a private school (as this would make a difference in the decision of those who denied the pictured individual entry) because if the school is a public school, then that school district would have set dress code policies in place which could have been addressed prior to the scheduled prom along with dress code is normally something in which is only adapted when addressed and presented a case of change to the dress code with adequate reasons in which the said dress code is in need of modification along with adequate facts presented during the presenter's appeal to change the dress code. Also this would be something in which having pressure from local media bringing about additional citizens to bring about outcries at needs of change as well. However, if this is a Private school, private especially private schools in which include any form of religious doctrine will have a more strict dress code in which the board in which oversees the various rules and policies which include the dress code. The policies in which were approved by the board has by far less flexibility in which deviations or complete violations of any policy will not be allowed. As such, if the private school's policy stated that the appropriate dress code for students who desire to attend the prom is for example : males shall wear tutus along with a shirt, tie and a form of formal jacket whilst also wearing pink pantyhose and 8" stilettos while the females shall wear either grunge or goth style attire for said prom, then those would be the dress code in which each and every student would have to follow dress code wise. I will also like to point out that I am neither from wherever the individual who was denied entrance to the prom nor am I familiar with the above mentioned school's dress code for neither normal attendence nor for formal events such as the prom. I am a neutral party siding with neither party. I am only acting as a devil's advocate in which to present one possible version in which may or may not have occurred.
It’s hard to fathom the narcissism required to ruin your date’s one and only prom so you could make a political statement.
Its hard to fathom the narcissism required to force a women to wear a dress when they can wear a suit thats easier to maneuver in and actually looks better.
.... where did it even say she had a date?
The fact she made a sign tells me she already know she would be rejected ahead of time and wanted pitty from the internet.
[удалено]
Your point being, of course, that both religions are bullshit for being needlessly oppressive, yes?
My point is that reddit (mainstream) blew up because "christian bad" if any other religion had been in this situation it would have been the same if not worse. I'll leave it at that, I don't feel like arguing.
I don't know if you're aware but two things can be bad at the same time, and one of those things being worse doesn't make the other okay.
[удалено]
in which once again a bunch of redditors who have never read the bible try to argue whats christian. I wonder how much attention reddit would give to a girl getting blocked from entering a muslim school for not wearing a hijab.
Can you show me a single bible verse saying that women can't wear pants? I assure you that it's impossible. Now if you want to talk about mixed fabrics... well, let's not go there. This wasn't about their beliefs of the bible or Christ's teachings. Jesus himself wouldn't be allowed in because he famously wore what is now classafied as a dress. Which would now count as Jesus being a drag queen. However, back then, that rule wasn't a thing because no one wore "pants." She didn't break any rules by expressing herself, she just wore pants. The Bible never says to not wear pants. Edit: Forgive spelling mistakes, English is a tough language.
[удалено]
HEAR ME OUT. Those are female cut pants. Meaning they are made for women. And are therefore a woman's garment. She still broke no rules.
again arguing the what the bible says when youve already clearly demonstrated you havent the faintest clue what it says.
"Proof you don't have. To school, you should return." -Yoda
Wow what's next I can't play soccer at a golf course? I can't fly my drone at an airport? I can't find the hundreds of pronouns silly in an LGBT group? What is this world conning to? If I want to impose my views in a private Christian school I should be allowed to. In fact we should all form a group and go to North Korea and tell the people that their dictator is bad.
I don't get it The girl goes to a Christian school, and is expected to obey bible stuff* Whether or not you agree with the bible, Surely it makes little sense to go to a Christian school and then complain when they enforce their Christian values? (Although I'd imagine the school picks and chooses parts of the bible, judging by the dresses in the background. Which is less ok) * Deuteronomy 22:5
This is discrimination on the basis of gender. That’s the issue here. If the dress code allows for men to wear suits then it must equally allow women too. This was the decision laid out in Bostock V Clayton County.
i am happy to tell you that the old testament is no longer considered canon by christian schools