Interesting..... (calling the biblical experts)

[moonshadow]

So I've got a really nice study bible that I read out of every now and then, and what's cool about it is the bottom half of each page explains every single verse briefly. I saw something interesting on a very popular passage regarding what many of us do here, thought I might pick the brains of some of the biblical experts....

This thread is NOT meant to stir up religious debate, I enjoy studying religion (all of them), nor is it intended to be critical of any faith. I pose this question out of genuine curiosity and with no malice intended. That said, if it turns ugly, and Carl locks the thread or sends it to the trash bin, I will not protest.

On the oh so famous passage of Deuteronomy 22:5 it states:
A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Now at the bottom of the page it states as an explanation:

Cross-dressing was forbidden by God in ancient Israel. In the ancient Middle East, dressing in clothing of the opposite sex was magical practice intended to bring harm to people. For example, a transvestite male would predict that the soldiers of another army would be as weak as females....

Fascinating... so as per this explanation it seemed to be more a matter of witchcraft than of any sexual, or perverted nature. As a self proclaimed "witch", naturally you can imagine that I found the explanation quite interesting, and frankly seems to make "my style" par for the course, so to speak!

Thoughts?

[moonshadow]

Hey, I just had a thought.....

If this (cross-dressing) was considered "magical practice", and magic is associated with witchcraft, and witchcraft is associated with Paganism, and Paganism is a recognized religion in the U.S., and I'm a Pagan, and with all this fuss over "religious freedom", would this mean that there should be no workplace discrimination based on the practice of wearing clothes intended for the opposite sex?

Uh oh....

[john62]

When you look at the painting of the Last Supper and the clothes worn by Jesus, the disciples and the women, they all look the same as they did in the Old Testament time. There were no sewing machines or metal needles most people just survived and they wore the basic robe, men and women. Therefore the English translation makes no sense. The Jewish teachers believe the two verses are about deception, that a man should not try to decieve and try to look like a woman and a woman like a man, nothing to do with clothing as such.

John

[moonshadow]

When you look at the painting of the Last Supper and the clothes worn by Jesus, the disciples and the women, they all look the same as they did in the Old Testament time. There were no sewing machines or metal needles most people just survived and they wore the basic robe, men and women. Therefore the English translation makes no sense. The Jewish teachers believe the two verses are about deception, that a man should not try to decieve and try to look like a woman and a woman like a man, nothing to do with clothing as such.

John

I noticed that too, in a "picture bible" (for children) that I found at my mothers house. As I looked at the drawings of the men and women, often times I wasn't sure how to tell the difference. Obviously being a children's book, there wasn't much emphasis on the women's breast, and otherwise was hard to tell the sex of the characters apart.

Further, as I have remarked before, even if we take the passage at face value of being "the undisputed word of God", still that creates an issue, because it doesn't seem to really specify what clothes are allowed and not allowed, as in, "trousers for men and skirts for women". All I can see is a verse about mixing fabrics. Nothing is said about high heels, nail polish, etc. The decision to make modern and semi-modern (in the biblical context) garments male or female was purely based on HUMAN customs, NOT Gods will.

So what it all boils down to is... why does it matter?

[Sinned]

Moon if you search the posts on SC this oh, so famous verse has already been picked over. Perhaps one of our members may like to pick out the post or using the site's search function look for Deuteronomy, as I haven't time now. But basically it has to do with military dress so that women weren't donning military uniform in order to fight and men doing the reverse in order to get out of fighting. At least so far as I remember. Your Bible is only telling half the story and is probably just quoting the party line, so to speak.

[crfriend]

Another point about the infamous Deuteronomy passage is that it's from the Old Testament, and therefore, technically speaking, obsolete in "modern" Christianity -- unless, of course, your particular sect adheres to it. That can certainly put the fun in fundamentalism.

For all of this furore it's worth noting that the Bible -- in all of its incarnations -- is but one viewpoint and one that has likely lost much in its various translations from the original Hebrew into assorted languages over the centuries. It's from a time we cannot really comprehend and would be wise not to romanticise. From what we do know about the time, it was a rather brutal period and life was short and very, very, hard.

As far as "cherry-picking" the Bible to "prove" one's point, I'll say with quite a bit of certainty that one can "prove" just about anything by (ab)using it creatively. Just because the words are in there does not mean that they are relevant today or whether somebody else is being "creative" to prove their point of view and quoting out of context.

[moonshadow]

Moon if you search the posts on SC this oh, so famous verse has already been picked over.

Well, it's not really the verse itself I'm wanting to pick over, rather it's the explanation at the bottom of the page. This was the first time I had seen this particular reference to "magick" and witchcraft in regards to biblical cross-dressing.

Your Bible is only telling half the story and is probably just quoting the party line, so to speak.

But that's the thing, my google search on the matter reveals nothing about the magickal aspects of wearing clothes intended for the opposite sex, everything I find is just the usual yada-yada about "cross-dressing being homosexual- homosexuality is a sin... blah blah blah..." One site I read while looking for answers on this actually had the audacity to proclaim that men who wear skirts is an abomination, however women who wear trousers are not, for the reason stated "trousers did not exist in biblical times"... ooookaaaay... and my thoughts are, "what does that have to do with anything??.. Neither did denim skirts, so should they be acceptable men's wear?" And no site I looked up seemed to acknowledge the customs of clothing, and how it evolves over time, how logically it must be the work of human-kind NOT God. Who decided a mini was a women's garment? - Show me the verse in the bible where a tunic-dress ceases to be a garment for men and as per God shall only be worn by women. But anyway, I'm digressing off my original question, that being the magicakal reference to cross-dressing in the explanation.

For all of this furore it's worth noting that the Bible -- in all of its incarnations -- is but one viewpoint and one that has likely lost much in its various translations from the original Hebrew into assorted languages over the centuries. It's from a time we cannot really comprehend and would be wise not to romanticise. From what we do know about the time, it was a rather brutal period and life was short and very, very, hard.

I have definitely considered that if I would hate to be alive in those days. Also, I believe a lot of Hebrew law was more a method of lawmaking at the time, similar to how we have modern secular laws today. It's almost as though someone were to take a copy of the code of the U.S. with all of it's various laws 3,000 years from now and make a religion out of it. I have seen countless passages where such biblical law was intended for the Israelites, not the gentiles (heathen/Pagan). As a man who, to the best of my knowledge has no Jewish blood in his ancestory, I feel much of Old Testament law doesn't apply to me anyway.

As far as "cherry-picking" the Bible to "prove" one's point, I'll say with quite a bit of certainty that one can "prove" just about anything by (ab)using it creatively. Just because the words are in there does not mean that they are relevant today or whether somebody else is being "creative" to prove their point of view and quoting out of context.

True, however this is one reason I enjoy studying the bible, while I realize one can justify almost anything under scripture, and counter it all the same, this is a method I use to neutralize overbearing religious people who try to force their religious views onto me. As I have told my daughter, "If you're going to follow a non-Chrisitan lifestyle in this country, especially in the south, you'd do well to read, understand, and know the bible well, a lot of people around here enjoy using the bible to promote their bigotry and fear-mongering, but *lowers voice to whister*-- here's a little secret- most of them don't read the bible at all, and it's quite easy to beat them at their own game! hehehehe....."

Speaking from experience on that one... I have had many "draws" (stalemates) with a fair number of religious people who preach to me. I outright stumped a pastor once and he quit coming around!

Bringing this topic back to the center, and to backpedal a little before I offend well meaning Christians (or Jews if we have any) on this site, I want to say that I fully understand that most modern Christians are indeed" live and let live", or at least try not to bother people they don't understand, but no one can deny that we do have some fundamentalist zealots in the world that take things a little too far, the "American Taliban" if you will. My angst with Christians is directed towards those people.

I will admit though, the hypocrisy when I get the evil eye from a goody-two-shoes Christian who ignores women who wear whatever they want annoys me, especially when that evil eye comes from a trouser wearing woman! Gheeesh!

[Taj]

Most mundane (uninitiated, in this context) folks, and a great deal of unschooled Wiccan wannabes, are fairly clueless about how magick works. This was true even in times of the Old Testament. Consequently, you find people then and now who ascribe power to inanimate objects. Objects do have energy, but not the power or will to direct said energy. Clothing could have been used in a form of sympathetic magick in the same way as poppets or VooDoo dolls. I think the statement in your study bible could perpetuate misunderstanding among the great masses. It is this misunderstanding that has caused such great harm over several millennia. That harm being in the form of condemning a practitioner as a user of evil rather than understanding them as a director of energy.

[Sinned]

If we were to follow the Mosaic law then we would still offer burnt offerings, stone people for adultery and other, to us, minor transgressions. No, Carl is right the biblical times were a distant age and the customs, dress and social mores not anything we would recognise today. As far as I am aware there was a rudimentary concept of magic in those times but nothing was ascribed to magical properties of wearing clothes of the opposite sex. In that respect I think the comment in your bible is incorrect unless they can cite something.

[wsherman]

Good day all!
From what I understand about the background at the Spurs this is a prohibition against following the practices of the peoples who worship the sun and the moon. It seems that it was common practice in those religions to cross-dress i.e. men wearing women's garbage and women wearing men's carb in the practice at their warship. This may be for the magic connection come Sam. At least that's my assumption.
Carl as to the thought of cherry picking in Scripture unfortunately it's the practice of some well-meaning Christians and perhaps some not so well meaning and unfortunately i've been guilty of it to in the past. Concerning Bible study I recommend to people that they take a purse and context that is read it in the setting of the chapter in the setting of the book and in the setting of the Bible as a whole.
The verse in Deuteronomy 22 five does not have a corollary anywhere else in the Bible i.e. this is the only place where he cross-dressing if you want to call it that is mentioned.. As it has been mentioned elsewhere in Deuteronomy 22 there are two other citations of clothing laws one which has to do with the mixture of fabrics, and the other that has to do with the tassels at the corners of the men's robe neither of which has anything to do with cross-dressing. The old covenant that is the law had one purpose and that was to teach men that they could not keep the law perfectly and thus were in violation of God's laws. When Christ came and perfectly kept him all the old covenant was fulfilled and the new covenant came into being with his death on the cross and resurrection. When Christ ordered the words from the cross it is finished the meaning of the phrase is one of perfect completion.
So with that in mind we are living under the new covenant now and the law has passed away and we are under the law of grace.

Mona I would very much like to know which study Bible that you're using could it be the Scofield Study Bible? If so the study notes of that Bible take back all the way to the first part of the 20th century early 1900s and would've been greatly influenced by the concepts of the 19 century.


Well everybody have a good day and take care as you go!
Bill answer Brinkley the exuberant my Leader Dog

My apologies for series mangling of my dictation two points it should read women's garb and moon MO in not Mona! Sorry about that moon.
It seems some days you just can't win with Siri.

[moonshadow]

From what I understand about the background that spurs the prohibition against following the practices of the peoples who worship the sun and the moon, It seems that it was common practice in those religions to cross-dress i.e. men wearing women's garb and women wearing men's garb in the practice at their worship. This may be for the magic connection come Sam. At least that's my assumption.

Thanks wsherman, that's exactly some of the information I was aiming for!

The old covenant that is the law had one purpose and that was to teach men that they could not keep the law perfectly and thus were in violation of God's laws. When Christ came and perfectly kept him all the old covenant was fulfilled and the new covenant came into being with his death on the cross and resurrection. When Christ ordered the words from the cross it is finished the meaning of the phrase is one of perfect completion.
So with that in mind we are living under the new covenant now and the law has passed away and we are under the law of grace.

I was speaking to a pretty well learned biblical man yesterday and we discussed this matter. He basically said the same thing you did above, almost a carbon copy of it, the part underlined I could have quoted to him directly. He also mentioned that as per biblical law (God's law) if one breaks one law, he has broken them all, the point, which was to illustrate that man will always fall short of God's law. Kinda-sorta puts things in perspective as I watch modern day events unfold regarding various issues, and frankly gives me a positive feeling about my choice to wear what I choose.

Moon I would very much like to know which study Bible that you're using could it be the Scofield Study Bible?

It is a Neslons New King James Version Study Bible, it was given to me for Christmas by Mom and Benny (my step-father) in 2012.


Note on quotes: I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty of attempting to correct some of the text in the quotes to reflect that which I assumed you meant. The corrected words are in italics. If I was mistaken in any way, I do apologize.
- - -

Most mundane (uninitiated, in this context) folks, and a great deal of unschooled Wiccan wannabes, are fairly clueless about how magick works.

Ain't that the truth. Although I'm not saying I'm any better, but suffice it to say, I've seen my share of charlatans. The Pagan community has quite a few of them running around.

As for the magicakal power of clothing, many Wiccan text I have read declare that it is best to practice nude, as clothes tend to hinder the flow of energy from the body. There have been some occasions, where I was assured absolute privacy that I have practiced ceremony nude in the woods. In fact, one advantage of wearing skirts in this regard is that are particularly easy to take off, and put back on in a hurry should someone happen upon you in the woods. All that aside however, I do find somewhat of a spiritual lift when I wear skirts and dresses, almost as though I am embracing a long denied side of myself. Perhaps it's just the freedom of wearing clothes considered taboo by the masses that gives me this feeling, I can not be sure.

The wearing of skirts and dresses are a good way to weed out "haters" in life, and surround yourself with people who will accept you for who you are. If you still have friends who love you even though you're wearing skirts and dresses, these friends will be MUCH better for the soul than those you have to hide your light around. Generally speaking, for a man who enjoys wearing skirts and dresses, regardless of their religious beliefs, I think few would deny that there is indeed some sort of spiritual uplifting of the soul (so to speak) associated with the garments. Obviously, in the eyes of nature, we all are beautiful in the nude, however we can not participate in society nude in most circumstances, we must wear clothes when we visit the store, the gas station, the post office, walk down the street etc. Skirts and dresses make me feel beautiful inside and out, whereas trousers, while I'm not saying make me look "ugly", I am saying that I just don't feel like I am expressing my inner self when I wear them. I'm just another guy wearing pants, no biggie. But in skirts, I feel as though I have set myself apart for the sheep of humanity, it's not so much about pride, but more about putting myself to the side of the material world.

The world shuns me for the most part when I wear skirts and dresses, hell even my own mother avoids me. With that shunning though I am able to move closer to what I view as "God". It relieves me of many distractions of the material world. I can easily spot out those who hate, and those who love, and they help me to read the characters and souls of those around me.

So I guess I can see why cross-dressing might have scared the bejesus out of early Hebrews, and still people today.

I think the statement in your study bible could perpetuate misunderstanding among the great masses. It is this misunderstanding that has caused such great harm over several millennia. That harm being in the form of condemning a practitioner as a user of evil rather than understanding them as a director of energy.

I noticed in the explanation that it was stated that this "magic" was used for harmful purposes. Naturally, any reference to magick or witchcraft in a Christian book, especially in a Bible, will be viewed negatively. Which is why, aside from my little joke[0] a few post up about using "religious freedom" as a means to wear skirts in places where it wouldn't normally be allowed, I would personally be wary of using the statement in the study bible as any defense of wearing skirts, as it could promote male skirt wearing in a negative connotation.

[0] And it WAS a joke by the way. Even if the argument was sound, everyone should know by now religious freedom only applies to Christians.

[Fred in Skirts]

[0] And it WAS a joke by the way. Even if the argument was sound, everyone should know by now religious freedom only applies to Christians.

And if you look closely it only applies to SOME Christians, Not All!

Fred

[dillon]

Just because I am not anything like an expert, doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, so here goes...

So, Moon, that's the whole thing about the Old Testament; there is a lot of background to the text with which most preachers do not bother to enlighten their audiences. Rather, they tend to present everything as if it originated in our times and with meanings they assign. That seems pretty evident, especially when single passages are used to justify sweeping pronouncements. Regarding your study of a passage, the big picture, IMHO, is that sexual immorality is condemned in the Scriptures. But I think this is probably because ancient observers were astute enough to recognize that terrible, often fatal, STDs were associated with those who sexually consorted the most freely. Lacking both the knowledge of medical microbiology and the process of empirical analysis, disease associated with sexual activity became, in their minds, a punishment of the Almighty for sinful behavior, just as Robertson and Falwell used to suggest that the scourge of HIV-AIDS was a punishment for homosexuality.

I have no way of knowing if God actually uses virology as a punishment, but it is inconsistent with my beliefs. I'd speculate that if such men as the aforementioned televangelists didn't opt to use their phony prophesies for political purposes, I suppose they would today claim that Ebolla is God's punishment for the sin of eating monkey organs. Now before the fundamentalists shout "But the Bible doesn't say anything about us not eating monkey organs..." do we not also need to presume there was likely no admonition about rampant sexual contact until men figured out it was a matter of public health and wrote down their belief about the source of the malady?

I tend to think that the message is that loving monogamy is the road-map for happy living. And I cant fathom why Christian Conservatives refuse to consider the possibility that loving monogamy is natural and therefore moral even in same sex couples. Too, they deny that gender is separable from genitalia, when, in fact the two are obviously not perfectly linked. Too, they won't accept that it is easier to reconcile the physical body to the mind, in gender dysphoria, than to reconcile the mind to the body. Why should it be sinful to use our intellect to understand these things? Why should we be seen as immoral for embracing the goodness within each person and supporting them in their journey through life? They prefer to make sinners of those whose natures they do not accept. Perhaps it is only because they need sinners in order not to despair of their own salvation. Or, perhaps, because searching one's heart is discomforting work.

As people of Faith, we tend to take at face value that when the Bible says "and God said..." that God actually spoke to men by voice. Naturally, I'd like to suggest another possibility. I suspect, rather, that men, by experience, learned things about life and living, then attributed the pieces they didn't yet understand and could not fill in to the mystique of the Almighty. So, knowing humans needed guidance for living, it was easy to attribute the lessons learned by observation over millennia of social development in humanity to the Divine. And, for teaching, it was more effective to present it in the form of direct intervention by the Almighty...because humans could err, but not an infallible God.

I don't think we could or should call the transcription of lessons learned and explanation of questions unanswered, such as the Book of Genesis ("In the beginning...") raises, a plot or deception; none of us can say that the texts were not Divinely inspired. But let's be honest about the likely scenario, and what we now understand, empirically, about matters of Law and Origin, subjects upon which Biblical literalists, prevailing, might deny us discussion or debate. We understand that the creation of earth did not happen in the time frame some literalists claim. Human society is perhaps five times older, and human origination likely a thousand times older than has been estimated from the account in the Book of Genesis.

It is perhaps possible that God indeed infused Moses with the knowledge of Creation, but also perhaps possible that God did so in a way that Moses could comprehend, or that Moses perhaps transcribed his Divine enlightenment in a way that the Israelites could comprehend; we cannot know, but only believe as we choose. It is also possible that God's delivery to Moses of said information was, in fact, more osmotic than pronounced; that it may simply have been the academic product of a learned and astute man recording history as he had heard it told, and also attempting to answer nearly unfathomable questions, such as "Where did we come from?" while also imparting the wisdom of the ages, garnered from the experiences of human life, in it's most basic form, and in a way that would preserve it as a manual for living, and a road-map for human society. But who is to say that he was not in some way Divinely inspired? Although humanity has information and data in quantity enough to astound our ancestors, collectively we still know next to nothing about anything.

Although I reject most theology as being the flawed and deceitful perpetrations of men, I find much beauty in what I have studied of the Bible, and in the passing along of history and wisdom, a practice which, in our employment, sets humans apart from our wild relatives and makes our existence, to an extent, wholly unique. It is one of the reasons I believe in a higher power in the Cosmos, be it a living God, or some extraterrestrial zookeeper, or some other ethereal force. Too, as an academic of a sort, I work with statistics, and it strikes me as improbable and incredible that, by chance alone, biology could have put humanity in it's current position; that out of the billions of life forms that have existed, and of the many directions that nature could have taken, our course has come this particular way in this particular time. My view on this differs from "Intelligent Design" which suggests that every bit of biota was Divinely planned; I see the mechanism - recombinant DNA and it's infinite mutations - as devised and unleashed, but the path it takes as being only "guided," not "choreographed."

And too, I suppose I HOPE there is a greater power, because I prefer to think that we mortals are not totally on our own. That same hope, I am sure, influences religion; it is the likely origin of our speaking of God as "Father." Perhaps, no matter how old we grow, we all still crave the safety of our parents' arms; although, personally, for that reason I find it more fitting to regard God as "Mother."

[Disaffected.citizen]

Just because I am not anything like an expert, doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, so here goes...

I, too, am no expert, but also have an opinion not dissimilar to yours, Dillon. i'm not going to repeat all of your excellent observations, but merely "chip in" with a few additional thoughts of my own:

Pork and certain shellfish are forbidden foods to Jews. Why? Although the Old Testament and The Torah forbid the eating, it is likely because the scholars realised the illness caused by the improperly prepared meats; therefore, they were unclean, rather than a random "you shall not eat" but the populace were likely in need of some "divine direction" or explanation.

Moving to Christianity, we are taught that Jesus was about love, tolerance and forgiveness. This is demonstrated by many writings about the poor decisions of some men (mostly Jews) and the good decisions of other men (mostly Gentiles), such as the tales of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son. Also, it is claimed that Mary Magdalen was off ill repute, yet he did not banish her, but welcomed her. His "motto" was love thy neighbour.

Moving back to the Old Testament, the Book of Genesis states Abram (Abraham), and I believe Noah and Moses, lived several hundreds of years. I suspect this was not an accurate account, rather an explanation after the event. So why do the learned preachers and evangelists bring out such anomalies? Possible because to do so would drive the Almighty wedge through their arguments.

I read into this that there is validity to the teachings from such old books, but that they should not be followed blindly and without thinking and interpreting for our new found knowledge over the past two millennia. Religion is the practise of repeatedly following a tradition, yet Christianity has evolved (so to has Judaism) from our learning. I think it is right and proper than the religious leaders countenance restraint and consideration as our sciences push evermore at the boundaries. They are a sanity check against some of the wilder experiments conducted. They question the " what if" that potential profit of the paymasters doesn't necessarily want to hear. I think of science (whether chemistry, biology, physics etc or social sciences such as economics, phychology, and politics) and religion/faith as two complimentary fields; yin and yang, so to speak.

So, where does this leave us? I'd like to say that we embody a middle ground between the scholarly scientists and preachers, but a different ground from the majority who "lap up" whatever they are told by aforesaid scholars. We question both sides and challenge their thinking. Long may we do so, for otherwise we are losing diversity at the expense of a homogenised society where (maybe not one size, but) a "few sizes fit all", and humanity may be doomed!

[moonshadow]

Dillon and D.A., thank you for sharing your thoughts, I found both post very thoughtful, reasonable, and a pleasure to read.

And if you look closely it only applies to SOME Christians, Not All!

Perhaps, but the irony is that those Christians who truly follow the message of Christ will have no need to invoke discriminating "religious freedom" laws anyway.