Skirts, Pants, and Deuteronomy 22:5

[Barleymower]

Despite a religous upbringing, i do not consider myself a believer.
Zeitgeist or Spirit of the Times has an interesting perspective on the origins of the bible and the life of Jesus

https://youtu.be/FN0pd_8yTLU?feature=shared

Of all the nonsense floating around the web it is well thought out analysis of Cristianity and other faiths. Must see.

[mr seamstress]

And... Just like that, I found a discussion of this very "translation." Hate to break it to you all, but the consensus here is that what was quoted above is just plain wrong.

https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... t-accurate

I don't believe what is publish isn't accurate translation. Consider the fact that God, Jehovah made man and woman same garment, not different. And the translation that is offered deals with physical clothing only. Then there is this is offered as part of answer is that people should wear clothes that is intended for their sex. Question is who get claim they know this answer. This person here seems to incinerate there were differences between man and woman robes during biblical times.
How can this person offer answer implicates man shouldn't wear dresses or skirts, because it isn't intended for them to wear such clothing because it is crossdressing. Does this person mean that Jehovah said men couldn't wear dresses and skirts. I couldn't find a scripter implicates man cannot wear dresses and skirts. This person suppling the answer seems indicate there is such a scripter.
If the manufacturer indicate the garment is unisex how can a person be seen as crossdressing? Who has the right to indicate which garment can be wore by which sex? The way the person answer the question here imply that male cannot cross-dress as long sales agent, manufacture. designer and others indicate they can wear their clothing. The person in suppling the answer open an Pandora Box stating one must wear clothing that is indicate for them.

This person imply that other version of the Bible didn't use the warrior the man, meaning their translation has to be correct. the problem here is you can 12 people on jury find a person guilty of a crime and all 12 can be wrong. Further the person here said he isn't an expert in this translation he supplied.

[crfriend]

Ladies and Gentlemen, we're wasting our breath, ink, and electrons on this. It's a matter of faith which means that it is outside the realm of reason, and thus cannot be cogently debated. I'm getting set to lock the thread unless we can move beyond the gridlock.

So few words written in another language many, many centuries ago that are used by ideologues and reactionaries to make others miserable. Not a willing scenario.

[denimini]

As I have previously stated, just ask if they also conform to 25.11-12.
I would be surprised if they did not agree that it is an outdated doctrine.

[Ray]

As Stevie suggested, please lock and close this thread.

[Mugs-n-such]

Just my two cents worth... I am a Bible believing, born again (I honestly believe so) Christian, and I wear skirts and dresses almost all the time... and I am around other Christians almost all the time.... very rarely (almost never actually) have I had that verse brought up. The one person who did bring it up to me believed that Allah and Jehovah are the same God....go figure....

NOBODY has ever brought up thar verse to me. With well over half the women wearing trousers and the priest and other ministers in my church wearing robes, getting after a man (myself) for wearing a dress is a bit ridiculous.

John

I totally agree!!

[Mugs-n-such]

Steve, there are those of us here who take our faith and the Bible seriously. If this verse worries anyone who comes here, I would like to take their concern seriously and address it.

If one is a Torah-following Jewish person, then the details of interpretation need to be examined. Anyone who makes your life miserable over this, if they don't follow the 613 laws in the Torah, is a hypocrite or ignorant on the subject. Lightly dismiss the criticism as one would an internet troll.

Very good!!

[Mugs-n-such]

If one is a Torah-following Jewish person, then the details of interpretation need to be examined. Anyone who makes your life miserable over this, if they don't follow the 613 laws in the Torah, is a hypocrite or ignorant on the subject. Lightly dismiss the criticism as one would an internet troll.

One of my clients is a very high Jewish family with the black hats, side curls(Payos), etc. The head of the family, in discussion about my style, he said that interesting people like me, gave space in the world for people like him to be different in public. I thought that was a very interesting take on me.

Most excellent!

[STEVIE]

With all due respect to ALL the contributors to this thread, I have not questioned the sincerity of any individual's belief.
Frankly, I see no difference in ANY religion as, by it's very nature it has to be based on acceptance without empirical proof.
The fact is, no consensus and certainly no agreement about those thirty words will ever be reached either here or in the wider world.
Any "individual" concerns with them, I have had my own share, should be dealt with, on exactly that basis.
I repeat, my request, this has benefitted no one, please let it stop here.
Steve.

[Midas]

I consider faith in a religion has nothing to do with God, in whatever form you choose to believe in such an entity.

Religion has little or nothing to do with God. All are creeds devised by men either as a means of social control, exercising power over others, or making money (or all three). My belief is that God exists but hasn’t got much time for religion.

The passage referred to is ancient and can have no bearing on the world as it is today. It’s one of many examples of the ills caused by religion in any form.

If you choose to follow a particular creed, all well and good, but keep it to yourself. Don’t shove it down someone else’s throat.

I n other words, this thread and others like it are offensive and should be shut down.

[Jim]

If you choose to follow a particular creed, all well and good, but keep it to yourself. Don’t shove it down someone else’s throat.

In other words, this thread and others like it are offensive and should be shut down.

Of course, don't shove it down someone else's throat. That would be offensive.

The value of this thread is for those who do have confidence in the authority of scripture. Without a proper understanding of the verse, they may feel conflicted over wearing skirts or dresses.

It is also helpful for those who want to give a reasonable response to someone who might question their clothing on these grounds. Attacking the questioner's faith may feel good, but does not bring understanding. I think it better to understand the point of conflict and help the other understand how the behavior can fit in their belief system.

[Coder]

It is also helpful for those who want to give a reasonable response to someone who might question their clothing on these grounds. Attacking the questioner's faith may feel good, but does not bring understanding. I think it better to understand the point of conflict and help the other understand how the behavior can fit in their belief system.

Yeah - I think for those who this doesn't apply - just ignore the "stupid thread". For those of us where it has or had some meaning, it's important to be able to discuss new questions etc... without creating a brand new thread for EACH and every time someone has a question about it, which frankly would be very frequent and get annoying. This thread helped me come to peace/understanding about this scripture verse - though chatting with a priest did as well - which is probably the better route than a random internet forum... but this is perhaps a helpful first step to get someone acquainted with some reasoning around/about it.

[mr seamstress]

Of course, don't shove it down someone else's throat. That would be offensive.

The value of this thread is for those who do have confidence in the authority of scripture. Without a proper understanding of the verse, they may feel conflicted over wearing skirts or dresses.

It is also helpful for those who want to give a reasonable response to someone who might question their clothing on these grounds. Attacking the questioner's faith may feel good, but does not bring understanding. I think it better to understand the point of conflict and help the other understand how the behavior can fit in their belief system.

When a man walks by another person wearing a dress or skirt, and that person claims he was offended by you, because you was pushing your belief. In reality you didn't. There is this lack of understanding. I agree with you to many on here just don't understand.

Crfriend posted Deuteronomy 22:5 had nothing to do with a person physical clothes and I agree. I found such person that teaches this. He teaches that Deuteronomy 22:5 is about Canaanites practice.

https://claudemariottini.com/2009/08/24 ... t-1/#links

I hope everyone accept him, Dr Mariottini as friend when it comes about what man can wear. He has publicly denounce anyone teaching the Bible differently. Two many clergy teaches as we know Deuteronomy deals with physical clothing and Canaanite practice. I take it this was how the Bible was taught before the invention of modern day pants.

Like others, what is posted is to help others and not in forcing anyone they have to believe. We should love one another regardless if you don't believe in the Bible. Man doesn't do a physical attack just walking while wearing a dress or skirt to another person considering it was a physical attack . Same goes here just talking about Deuteronomy how it is used against us as we dress in clothes of our choice, isn't a physical attack making anyone to believe in the Bible.

To many on here rather kick Dr Mariottini's ass than accept him as he says put on whatever you want to wear regardless if you are male or female, for God it doesn't matter what you wear. They can't accept him because he teaches the Bible, even though he gives them a green light to wear what they want.

[moonshadow]

There have been several requests to lock this thread, and to be frank, these requests are bothersome.

The thread has not flamed, it's not called anyone out, it has remained a respectful discussion over how a passage in a book that millions upon millions of people read to help guide their lives. Those who would seek to shut down a civil discussion simply on the grounds that they just don't want their eyes or ears (assuming it was a real world discussion) are no different than the hyper-religious people who are always trying to restrict speech and pass laws to curtail secular conversations and activities. It's two sides of the same coin! It goes to show there are religious fanatics (those who simply can not bear the thought of secular discussion), and anti-religious fanatics (those who simply can not bear the thought of religious discussion).

They [the anti-religious among us] will rant about a school board removing book from school promoting a boy who likes to wear dresses, while at the same time trying to have a conversation shut down about how the religious can somehow square their desire to wear "that which partaineth to the opposite sex" with their beliefs.

We tell people who are bothered by our skirt wearing to look the other way. Well, pardon the pun, but I think a few members of this thread should practice what they preach, and when confronted by a thread about religion and how it ties into men in skirts (the theme of this forum), perhaps they should look the other way if they simply can not bear the thought.

Personally, I've found this thread to be very insightful, and useful in arming one's self with the necessary study when having to confront the issue of us wearing skirts (including myself) in the real world. Though I live in a very non-religious area at the moment, my old home is anything but, and I can tell you first hand that religion does indeed matter to a lot of people. Provided this thread remains civil and calm, I would be disappointed if it were to be shut down simply on the grounds of certain anti-religious members here can't stop clutching their pearls and the mere mention of any kind of religious discussion. To me, that represents heavy handed authoritarianism.

[crfriend]

The thread has not flamed, it's not called anyone out, it has remained a respectful discussion over how a passage in a book that millions upon millions of people read to help guide their lives. Those who would seek to shut down a civil discussion simply on the grounds that they just don't want their eyes or ears (assuming it was a real world discussion) are no different than the hyper-religious people who are always trying to restrict speech and pass laws to curtail secular conversations and activities. It's two sides of the same coin! It goes to show there are religious fanatics (those who simply can not bear the thought of secular discussion), and anti-religious fanatics (those who simply can not bear the thought of religious discussion).

There are multiple thoughts in play with the above -- and that's good -- but my original comment stands: "Have we made any real progress to settling this issue?" I posit, "No, we haven't. People are too entrenched in their own particular beliefs to ever come to a civil accord on the matter. Thus, we are wasting our time at this."

Philosophically, I do not like shutting down civil discourse -- but sometimes the "needle just never moves" and rehashing the same old arguments never bears results. There's precious little new thinking on the matter, and different translations from the KJB get routinely trashed. Similarly, arguments about the applicability of the passage in the context of modern society go unnoticed and unheeded. If somebody has drawn new thought and new perspectives from the discussion, good (!), but overall there seems to be no real motion on changing attitudes and thinking. Which, given what we're being subjected to now, is not entirely surprising.

Put bluntly, we have more pressing matters to pay attention to at the moment -- and those take priority.