Christian MEN Wearing Skirts

[Kirbstone]

As the Irish stand-up comedian Dave Allen famously used as his 'Good bye' on his programmes on the BBC....'May your God go with you'.

I endorse that fully, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with clothing choices, in my humble opinion.

Tom

[Ralph]

I think we're definitely reading this discussion differently.

Do not put me in the same basket with Couyalair. In this matter I am totally on the other end of the table and he is on your end of table. You both want to show your religion as the right one and that is the discussion I see will corrupt this interesting thread.

Perhaps I misunderstood your attitude towards religious beliefs; I got the impression you are hostile to such beliefs. That's why I "put you in the same basket" with Couyalair, who said:

It beats me completely that anyone today can be bothered with the musings of a bygone society that has so little resemblance with the modern western world, unless of course it is from an interest in anthropology. We laugh at our own parents' fashions, yet we should take seriously the admonitions of ancient tribes???

So he and I are definitely not in the same club. I think I made it clear that I do have some specific, strong beliefs about theology, and they are completely opposite what couyalair said above.

Moving right along...

I am only trying to say that this might not be the right place to witness your belief in your God and knowing how your God feels.

Where on earth do you see anybody "witnessing", or telling others their belief is right and others are wrong? And if I gave the impression for one moment that I know how God thinks, my work needs some serious editing. I have no pleated clue; I can only speculate based on my understanding of scripture. The OP also stated:

Right, am I? Or wrong? You decide.

and opened the conversation by saying this was just his own personal opinion on the subject. Sounds pretty non-confrontational to me.

And finally...

Hm... Without counting I think I am the one who has made most posts in this thread. I see, that shows that I am not interested
Yes, I am not interested in your or anybody's personal beliefs but I am interested in the subject of this thread.

And here you've managed to confuse me. The OP was about religious interpretation of religious documents, which by its very nature involves what one believes in those documents, yet you say you are interested in the topic (religious documents) but not in religious beliefs? You do indeed seem to have posted more frequently on this thread than anyone else, but most of your posts have been explanations of why you don't think we should be allowed to discuss the topic. Yep, I'm definitely leaving here more confused than when I came in

Shalom!

[crfriend]

[Mod hat on]

Gentlemen. Let us stay to the ideas and notions put forward and not drag personalities into it. Thoughts and ideas do not have feelings. People do. There's a line there, and decorum should prevent any of us from crossing it.

[Mod hat off]

[skirtyscot]

So, gentlemen, how do you decide which bits of the Bible to expend all that mental energy on, and which ignore?

[Darryl]

Ok, with some trepidation I will make this addendum and hope to show why I made my post. NOT to say we COULD NOT wear skirts, but to say WE COULD.

I've been morbidly obese for decades, creeping up from my discharge from the Navy in '77 to a max of 305-310 pounds. In 2002 I had an angioplasty and was put on my own lifelong drug cocktail. By 2004 I noticed I had "jiggle" but I don't think we changed drugs around until 2008 when I had lost 55 pounds.

The First Issue

In 2007, the nurses and staff at the home my mom was in suggested support hose was the answer to my tired legs from 12-hour shifts at Humana's network operations center. With some reluctance I bought a pair and tried them. It helped a lot, including some reduction in nightly leg cramps. Due to poor leg circulation my podiatrist gave me a Prescription for them in case anyone "made an issue" of my wearing No Nonsense Smart Support (way cheaper and easier to wear than medical-grade support hose) and they did the job. I've also had one DVT since I started wearing them and there is a good probability I am still alive because I was wearing 24/7/365.

I made no real secret of what I was wearing, under trousers or in the open with shorts as the weather permitted. An acquaintance and friend of a friend got all upset and couldn't do any business or even be seen with me because I looked 'gay.' Well, OK, judge not and all that so I flipped the safety cover and hit the jettison switch on that relationship. Done.

The Second Issue.

Gynecomastia. There, I said it. I was at 48C (almost D) at my highest weight. Losing the weight brought me down to 46B and the ladies at Lane Bryant recently put me into 44B. I might hope to get smaller as I reach my targeted weight goal. But...I may only lose circumference from this point on. $6,000-10,000 for elective surgery is not an option. The situation is difficult to hide. Most ladies at work and some other friends strongly suspect...or know since they gave me a backrub...and haven't said anything.

And now? He wants to wear a Skirt?!?

Reading the six or seven threads here that...<ahem>...skirted the issue of Dt. 22:5 between 2008 and now I didn't see anything I could "sit back and relax" after reading. The other day while walking in the park with a pleated skirt and t-shirt I met another older gentleman who was full of questions so we compared medical notes and such after he opened the conversation by asking if that was some kind of kilt. Vertical pleats, so it was a kind of kilted skirt. But not a full formal and expensive kilt. So we talked about prices of kilts and skirts, various BP and cardiac drugs. Don't know if he'll show up again over there or not.

Anyway, no one threw Dt. 22:5 in my face, but it had come up in a different context. Now FIRST OF ALL, the Gentile Church (Acts 15:22-29) was not asked by the leadership in Jerusalem to follow all of the Law. Just to abstain from meat offered to idols, and from blood and from what has been strangled and from sexual immorality. Then there are the Two Great Commandments (both start off with 'LOVE'). Basically, that's it.

There are still people out there who...ummm...leap to conclusions, judge, and want to lead you back into paths of righteousness. Can we get an amen?

So I started my research paper (47 pages so far) with what I could find in BibleWorks and WordSearch, then sought to validate my findings by reaching out to professors and students I know at the SBTS/RTS (seminaries) and thence to the Internet. So I have (as Scriptures recommend) a reason for the hope that is in me AND can prove to my satisfaction, at least, that men AND women have been wearing skirts or skirted garments since 'the beginning' (however you conceive that to be) and have BOTH been wearing pants for at least 4,000 years once horses get into the picture. The garments G-d made for Adam and Eve were exactly the same: a long shirt-like garment. Therefore, since G-d does NOT change, Dt. 22:5 must be about something else than mere strips of cloth. I'm now fairly sure I have an idea of which one is likely.

Traduttore traditore – the translator is a traitor!

Rabbi Judah is reported to have said “If one translates a verse literally, he is a liar; if he adds thereto; he is a blasphemer, and a slanderer.” (b. Kiddushin 49a)

Since someone asked

Although meaning can never be reproduced perfectly it can be rendered truly, that is, with a high degree of accuracy. What Bible readers need to understand is that all versions – no matter how accurate – have certain limitations. These can be overcome by:
1. Using more than one version to gain a better perspective.
2. Reading larger units of text to determine the greater context and flow of thought.
3. Checking good commentaries on difficult passages.
4. Gaining a better knowledge of the world of the bible through studies of its background and culture.

Determining the Most Plausible Reading
1. Manuscripts must be weighed, not counted.
2. Determine the reading that would most likely give rise to the others.
3. The more distinctive reading is usually preferable.
4. The shorter reading is generally favored.
5. Determine which reading is more appropriate in its context (examine literary context, grammatical or spelling errors, historical context).
6. Examine parallel passages for any differences and determine why they may appear.

I also have gobs (technical term) of lists of unintentional changes as well as intentional ones, examples, and reasons for them. Discussion of that would take at least a semester, so I'm not going there.

It is NOT a faith-based issue.

It is a cultural issue.

____________________________________________

And now you know...the REST of the story.

[crfriend]

So, gentlemen, how do you decide which bits of the Bible to expend all that mental energy on, and which ignore?

Based on observational experience, most folks tend to ignore the precise texts of their religions until they rub up against a bit that seems "inconvenient", and then they go to the text and cherry-pick the bits that uphold or otherwise "justify" their position. This is human nature at work, after all, but the problem is that it's work in a very bounded world-view.

Of note is that it also cuts two ways: someone might take umbrage upon seeing me in a skirt and craft a finely-tuned (read, "cherry-picked") interpretation of their favourite scripture and try to beat me over the head with it; if I was in a similar vein, then I might formulate my own interpretation of the same text but with an opposite conclusion. However, if I do not operate within the same "scriptural mindset or tradition" as the individual in question I am fully and completely within my rights to tell him to, "Sod off, I'm not one of you." -- but to do so would be (1) disrespectful and (2) impolite, and I try not to be that way. Far more effective is to rationally deal with the ravings with a calm, collected retort of, "I'm sorry you seem to feel that way, but I have several friends who follow the {fill in the blank here} path who disagree with your assertion." and be done with.

It's fine for Christians to argue the merits, or otherwise, of Deuteronomy amongst themselves; I have no problem with that. What happens, however, when the brawl spills out of the temple and into the street where others with different world-views and spiritual systems happen to live? Is it really relevant to them, or does it amount to a disturbance of the peace?

[Darryl]

PS: The question was asked about Dt. 22:30 and the use of the word 'skirt.'

There are at least 26 appearances of 'skirt', 'skirts' and 'skirtes' in the older translations: Young's Literal Translation, Geneva, King James and the word counts decrease as you move into more modern translations such as New American Standard and so on, and in a really modern version such as the 2011 NIV (which I favor) there are only 5 occurrences and each involves a female archetype. I only did a cursory look at the Latin Vulgate but though the KJV translators were highly influenced by that work, I don't see anything that looks like skirt there. So I'll make a first-order conclusion that it was the English that introduced the term. And no, I don't think it is worth anything to go any further with that line.

The references to "your father's skirt" disappears into a 'circumlocution for describing the dishonor that would come to a father by having his own son share his wife's sexuality.' In other cases, the word vanishes in "hem of their robes" and similar. In no case are they talking about the kind of skirt we are likely thinking of, starting at the waist and going down to the knees or ankles.

[Jim]

So, gentlemen, how do you decide which bits of the Bible to expend all that mental energy on, and which ignore?

I believe a Christian, as a follower of Christ, needs to interpret the Bible in the light of Jesus. We need to allow the Spirit of Jesus to guide us in his word.

[crfriend]

I'd like to thank Darryl for this post as it seemed to somehow slip under my personal RADAR when I was trying to ride herd on the thread and running in full-on "moderator mode" (and, dammit, that hat is bloody itchy) which I now find rather sad, for in that commentary he states his points for writing the opening post with eloquence and style.

This is the sort of discourse I'd like to see here if we're to deal with religion.

[Ralph]

First, let me add a hearty "me too!" to crfriend's accolades for introducing a thorny topic with grace.

all versions – no matter how accurate – have certain limitations.

That's why I like interlinear translations. Get the original Hebrew alongside the translation of choice. If you're blessed to be fluent in ancient Hebrew, so much the better! But for the rest of us, you can at least look at the *exact* original wording and see how it led to the modern translation. For example, Deut 22:5 gives us:
לא יהיה כלי גבר על אשה ולא ילבש גבר שׁמלת אשה כי תועבת יהוה אלהיך כל עשׁה אלה ף

A word-for-word translation reads (dashes indicate a single Hebrew word transliterated into mulitple English words)
Not he-shall-become outfit-of master on woman and-not he-shall-put-on master garment-of woman that abhorrence-of YHWH Elohim-of-you any-of one-doing-of these

Source: Scripture4all's interlinear translation of Deuteronomy 22: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /deu22.pdf

"master" is the quarrelsome word. Rather than the word we all know for "man", "adam", they use a word "geber" that implies nonstandard strength or authority, suggesting a warrior or other leader. Read that way, it suggests they were specifically warning against Joan of Arc

So... yeah. Like Darryl says, translating from the original Hebrew into a language that makes sense to us today ain't so easy. It's like trying to decipher what the original framers of the Constitution had in mind! (sorry, a little joke there... as a centrist I find myself caught between my conservative friends and my liberal friends both reaching entirely opposite interpretations of the exact same phrase in the Constitution).

For me, personally, the use of "geber" instead of "adam" is reassuring. Because I want to exonerate myself, I choose to interpret that to mean "other people, not me". But hey, whatever soothes our conscience, right?

[happykilt]

Perhaps I misunderstood your attitude towards religious beliefs; I got the impression you are hostile to such beliefs. That's why I "put you in the same basket" with Couyalair, who said:

If I gave any indication of any hostility against any religious belief or against lack of such belief I have to apologise. My English is far from perfect.

And here you've managed to confuse me. The OP was about religious interpretation of religious documents, which by its very nature involves what one believes in those documents, yet you say you are interested in the topic (religious documents) but not in religious beliefs?

I do not see this the same way as you. One can be interested about the logic of the interpretation and its historical context without sharing the same religious beliefs or having any religion at all.

I hope this clears the sky somewhat so I try to keep this short.

Thank you Darryl for a very interesting posting.

[the_scott_meister]

Most of us on these boards live in the western world which is dominated by one form or another of Christianity. Doesn't matter whether you personally believe in any of it or not, if you go out in into the world you are going to run into somebody who is very opinionated and dead sure in their beliefs (and yes, atheism is a religion too, as is global warming, and science in general, for that matter). Nor does it matter which side you are on, you will have to deal with those from the other side eventually. And as Carl said, people tend to cherry-pick specific items that strengthen their side while ignoring those that don't. Most people don't know or wouldn't care that you can't mix your materials without being condemned to a most heinous death by stoning. They only know that one verse that supports their personal view on what they believe. Having the OP post the information he did simply gives us more knowledge, maybe enough to counter their arguments. His post isn't about religious truth, it's about cultural traditions and history and how their applied today vs. how they were applied yesterday.

However, with that said, seems as though it's usually brought up by either fundamentalists or by born-agains and there's no way we're going to change their minds. We're dealing with religion, which is irrational to begin with. And I don't say that to condemn, it's just the nature of it all (again, atheism, science, global warming, etc, are just as much a religion as anything else).

[Big and Bashful]

Most of us on these boards live in the western world which is dominated by one form or another of Christianity. Doesn't matter whether you personally believe in any of it or not, if you go out in into the world you are going to run into somebody who is very opinionated and dead sure in their beliefs (and yes, atheism is a religion too, as is global warming, and science in general, for that matter). Nor does it matter which side you are on, you will have to deal with those from the other side eventually. And as Carl said, people tend to cherry-pick specific items that strengthen their side while ignoring those that don't. Most people don't know or wouldn't care that you can't mix your materials without being condemned to a most heinous death by stoning. They only know that one verse that supports their personal view on what they believe. Having the OP post the information he did simply gives us more knowledge, maybe enough to counter their arguments. His post isn't about religious truth, it's about cultural traditions and history and how their applied today vs. how they were applied yesterday.

However, with that said, seems as though it's usually brought up by either fundamentalists or by born-agains and there's no way we're going to change their minds. We're dealing with religion, which is irrational to begin with. And I don't say that to condemn, it's just the nature of it all (again, atheism, science, global warming, etc, are just as much a religion as anything else).

Science and globals warming are religions are they? I think not.

religion   Use Religion in a sentence
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

(From Dictionary.com)

This is how I view the definition of religion, there are other definitions out there, which include everything up to football as a religion, but to my little world view this definition fits.
To me science is not a belief in superior beings or even a body of people adhering to a set of beliefs etc. It is a bunch of people observing things, developing theories then attempting to prove their theories correct via evidence.
Global warming; looking at weather patterns and arguing over why they appear to be changing, that is mostly scientists again, trying to convince people that their theory is right, or wrong. Whether you happen to believe global warming is man made or not, doesn't turn it into a religion.

[dillon]

I understand what Scott was trying to communicate. For me, personally, as a self-understood cosmic deist, science is at the essence of "religion", in as much as my own belief in "God, unconstrained by theology" could be regarded as "religion".

I suspect that many of us here also suffer the conundrum between our faith traditions and what we know as the reality of existence as assuredly as the scriptural believers understand the essence of the Biblical or Koranic portraits of God; we choose not to view the perceived conflict between the empirical and the ethereal as an either/or, all or nothing dispute; we prefer to accept that God exists with or without the many and varied theologies that claim to be the sole true path; we shrug at the black and white pronouncements of theologies and prefer to understand faith in shades of gray.

We have no difficulty reconciling the existence of an omnicient God, perhaps even as the Creator, as in my own view, with the tenets of empirical science, including the well-evidenced evolution of species and the highly variable human psychology and sexuality. We do not insist upon the perfection of creation, but view it as the set of natural processes that were unloosed upon a chunk of rock orbiting a ball of heat-yielding reactive gases.

And we may differ with our literalist brothers in our beliefs about "man created in God's image" by asking why our view of God must be restricted to one of a purely heterosexual male deity. Perhaps, we think, God might be as much female as male, and perhaps gender and sex roles exist in a spectrum unrecognized scripturally, yet without differing from God's nature.

Personally, I believe that human intellect and reason are gifts of the Creator and intended to be used in good conscience and not suppressed.

But I digress, and recommend that we endeavor to stay closer to the theme of the Cafe, for the sake of mutual respect and fraternity.

[dillon]

I will add that I also fervently believe that, historically, the extent of true human freedom exists solely in the distance between church and state.