Christian MEN Wearing Skirts

[Tor]

Note: I hope I am not wandering too far and nor into territory too dangerous here. I am reminded here of the observation on usenet holy wars that (paraphrased from a quote I couldn't find in the jargon file) "the intensity of flamage is inversely proportional to the factual arguments available to bolster any opinion." Having watched most folk here show themselves able to converse rationally and respect difference of opinion or remain quiet I shall offer my perspective.


I find this thread quite interesting, though perhaps in part as a sideline watcher who is not terribly personally affected by the debate. To be honest, I would have to describe myself (within this context, at least) as someone who has had little interest in the Bible, regarding it (without having actually read it, I'll admit) as containing quite a few seeds of wisdom worth living by, but full of details with fairly little relevance in the modern world.

Recently, however, I have read some work looking at physical forms of landmasses and constellations and the probabilities of random formation thereof. Honest interpretation forces me to seriously consider that [parts of] the Bible (and the rest of the major ancient mythological traditions) may in fact be "received knowledge" handed down to humanity by folk with "sufficiently advanced technology", at least for the time (see Clarke's third law). Genesis, at least is now on my reading list as one check of this work. Even so, this has not changed my attitude towards any of the current organized religions I am aware of.

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".

...[W]e 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.

Nice wording here. I like to think that I follow science, at least in its pure form, though I probably maintain quite a bit more skepticism towards modern science than many. If I understand my reading aright the athiest point of view is approximately "God cannot be proved to exist; therefore there is no God." However, last I checked, it appeared that most modern scientists admit they cannot actually prove that God doesn't exist, upon which basis I would rate athiesm as a religion just as much as deism or any of the other more formal religions.

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.

The existance of that ball of heat-yielding reactive gasses is well documented. That it is there is the provence of science. How it got there seems to be the provence of science. Its ultimate cause seems to be a matter that science has declared impossible to prove either way by currently known now or future science, leaving that question to religion (in the broad sense). Is it any wonder that religion is a contentious topic, even without all the fragmentary views of just one religious text (which yet seem to be the source of much of the contention)?

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.

If the research I've read and referred to here is as impossible to shred to pieces as I strongly suspect it to be, then both brother scientists and brother literalists will have to give ground in the coming time. In that case, scientists would have to come to accept the possibility of deliberate design in the world, while biblical literalists would have to accept that the bible was written at the end of a multi-millenia telephone game from oral historian to oral historian, without direct hand of God to ensure accuracy.

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

Amen.

[barefoot_kevin]

We have friends that are Christian missionaries on several island countries in the South Pacific. They live and work in their respective villages, and most of them adopt the dress, albeit more modestly, of the local population. If you know the least bit about these areas, you would know that both genders usually wear unbifurcated garments. I would scarce believe that God would look down on them because of this, but rather commend them for their faithfulness.

[Departed Member]

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (AKA Mormons), being a Christian, here's my take on religion and the wearing of skirts:

As Mormons, we believe in the eternalness of gender, believing that we existed in a pre-earth life, being literal posterity of a Father in Heaven (who we call God, the Father, Christ being His first born and thus our elder brother). As such, we believe that we had gender or a specific sex (whatever term you want to use), and that once we born a male or a female with those physical and physiological characteristics of one or the other, we remain such. (I personally don't believe there were androgynous beings then, born with characteristics of both sexes like there are now because I believe we existed in a time of perfection then, but exist now in a fallen state with imperfection, and thus unnatural mutations enter in.) As such, once born a male or a female in the pre-earth life, we would be the same gender on earth, and would remain that gender for all eternity. Simply put, born a male, you remain a male, etc.

Thus, while I believe as a Mormon in the eternalness of gender and the dichotomous sexes, I do not believe clothing has anything to do with this doctrine of the Mormon faith. Clothing, inasmuch as it hasn't been prescribed by God (which it has been, but in very few, specific situations regarding the Mormon temple) in the Mormon faith, is simply like money, a tool to use for specific purposes, and as such is not inherently evil and does not have an inherent gender. Rather, it is society that puts their ideas about gender into clothing, dictating forcefully (or what we call in the Mormon faith "unrighteous dominion") that certain clothing styles or forms, or even colors, materials, or patterns/prints belong solely to certain of the two genders, and that cross over is forbidden upon pain of punishment of some form by man on man.

Interestingly, in LDS/Mormon visual depictions of Christ and all other Biblical figures of Old and New Testament, as well as of Book of Mormon figures, all of them are wearing unbirfurcated garments, either skirts or in essence dresses, which we would probably call robes today in our hyper sensitivity to mixing anything of the male and female genders. Indeed, take a look at this painting depicting Christ visiting the Americas, as painted by a Mormon:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bc/image ... mage-7.jpg
Not a single pair of trousers or other bifurcated clothing in this painting; and look at the colors and patterns worn by both men and women! Shocking (sarcasm)!! Both men and women are wearing either maxi, midi, or mini skirts or dresses (although we don't get as good a view of the women as we do the men, so its hard to tell the length of their skirts; the ones visible are all wearing longer skirts). And in the context of this painting, this was not long after the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in the Bible, after the wicked and evil people had been destroyed by the destructions caused in the Americas and the world by the crucifixion of Christ, who Mormons believe is the creator of this earth. In other words, the people depicted in this painting are the righteous ones who were righteous enough to survive the natural destructions caused by the murdering of Christ. If wearing skirts were evil, then it wouldn't make sense that they were saved from those destructions instead of included in them, being destroyed along with the wicked.

Or check pout this guy with the kilt-ish action going on (wrap skirt with a sporran like thing): https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bc/image ... mage-5.jpg

Indeed, Jospeh Smith's description of the Angel Moroni, found in the LDS scriptures in what we called the "Joseph Smith History" chapter 1 verse 31-32 (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng) shows Moroni wearing an unbirfurcated garment called a robe in Joseph Smith's language of English, but which is essentially the same thing as a dress when one gets down to the basic meanings of these words as defined in the dictionary and as logic defines them (i.e. a dress/robe is a upper garment attached to a lower skirted garment, etc.)

In addition, without going into detail for sacredness's sake, there is an unbifurcated garment both men AND women wear in the LDS temple for a specific ordinance. So in reality, the LDS religion seems to preach that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a man wearing a skirt, inasmuch as he is not trying to represent himself as the opposite gender/sex (i.e. female) and believing himself to be one. The condemnation of a man wearing a skirt in the LDS religion is purely social, resulting from societal ignorance of history and current situations in other countries and an irrational fear of mixing anything to do with the separate genders, a fear I think mostly stems from men fearing being seen as "feminine." All LDS doctrine seems to support the wearing of skirts by men, or in the very least finds no fault in it, clothing simply being a neutral tool like money is, to be used for god or evil.

I should note, however, that many, if not most Mormons don't see it the way I do, for many reasons, but I think mostly because they haven't thought of it at all and just don't question their social upbringing in relation to LDS doctrine and scriptural teaching.

I hope this description of LDS beliefs in relation to the wearing of skirts hasn't offended anyone or strayed from what is appropriate on this board.

[Sinned]

Most LDS that I associate with ( and probably most in America as well ) were brought up in the same traditional manner as most on this site and so have the same prejudices. It's just that some of us manage to overcome those prejudices. The paintings that you use as examples are just an artist's conception and not necessarily gospel but I would like to think that they are accurate. The account of Joseph Smith's vision is clear enough though. Depictions in more ancient times mean that they were subject to the dress codes of their times.

MOH, almost vehemently against me wearing a skirt, would concede that in more olden days in this country men wore smocks, tunics, dresses, skirts but according to her way of thinking that was then but we are here now. She would also concede that skirts are worn in other societies such as Asia, Hawaii, the Middle East and so on and she would say, "Move there then if you want to wear a skirt." She would argue that this is the now of our society and she doesn't know of any other man who wears a skirt so that makes me so different that I would stand out and be beaten up for doing so. So arguing as you have done Ptblly doesn't amount to a "whole hill of beans" to use an expression. I thank you for putting across a possible interpretation of our Church's stance but you are using a logical argument to refute an illogical opinion and no amount of this will change it. This has been debated before and Crl, among others, has provided great insight into this.

While the Church in itself wouldn't condemn a member wearing a skirt to any of its services the people within the congregation are subject to their learned prejudices and may need reminding of the necessity of tolerance and understanding. I have known some of the members for twenty years and more and have a fair idea how they would react - acceptance eventually, given time.

[Departed Member]

MOH, almost vehemently against me wearing a skirt, would concede that in more olden days in this country men wore smocks, tunics, dresses, skirts but according to her way of thinking that was then but we are here now. She would also concede that skirts are worn in other societies such as Asia, Hawaii, the Middle East and so on and she would say, "Move there then if you want to wear a skirt." She would argue that this is the now of our society and she doesn't know of any other man who wears a skirt so that makes me so different that I would stand out and be beaten up for doing so. So arguing as you have done Ptblly doesn't amount to a "whole hill of beans" to use an expression. I thank you for putting across a possible interpretation of our Church's stance but you are using a logical argument to refute an illogical opinion and no amount of this will change it. This has been debated before and Crl, among others, has provided great insight into this.

I know exactly what you go through with your MOH. As of now, I have no MOH, and the opposition comes from certain relatives, and what you've described of your MOH fits the description of certain relatives of mine as well. I've heard all those lines before, and no matter how logical I get with them and no matter how much evidence I give to them to back up my arguments, it just doesn't matter. Their mindset is stuck where it is, and nothing save an angel coming down would change their minds...even then I have my doubts. Hence, I've stopped trying to persuade them and just simply say, get used to it because it ain't going away. Anyway, I feel your frustrations, given our common faith and experiences with those close to us in what we both see as an illogical opposition to something of no harm.

As for the paintings, its true that they are merely artist's renditions of what might have been the case, but of which we really just don't know. But, even if for some reason the rendition is not accurate, its highly interesting that a male artist would put male historical figures in skirts, brightly colored ones at that!

However, I did confide in a female LDS friend I recently made who is from the US but is currently living in Scotland. I told her I wear skirts and why and she seemed to be completely ok with it and in complete agreement with me. So, there's always hope. That's one Mormon female onboard, it seems.

[crfriend]

I hope this description of LDS beliefs in relation to the wearing of skirts hasn't offended anyone or strayed from what is appropriate on this board.

Just so it's known, discussion of skirted garments within the context of religion is perfectly fine here, and hopefully enlightening to folks who may not share the same dogma.

Where it crosses the bounds of polite conversation is when folks bash religions for various things. Belief systems can be crucial to those who hold them; for some it forms the foundation of who they are and how they behave in relation to those around them. No matter what our own personal opinions are regarding the concept of "belief" or "religion", lots of folks take it very seriously indeed, and slagging off on those beliefs is not only entirely unproductive but very frequently counterproductive.

I've had to deal with this situation a couple of times in "meatspace" and it usually comes down to my assertion that, "I do not happen to follow your belief system, instead favouring another one.", and usually following some polite, if sometimes strained, conversation after that all is smoothed over. Most of the time I never let on what my own personal ethic follows, nor do I need to as my actions speak vastly louder than any words I might utter.

I am enjoined from more than a few fraternal organisations because of my belief system -- frequently to the sadness of those who would like me to join them and who frequently indicate that I am the perfect candidate. (Which, of course, I am not because I fail The Test.)

[partlyscot]

I am not going to bash religion, however.

Atheism is NOT a religion. For me to say I am an atheist, means that nothing I have read has given me any reason to feel that the existence of any god is proven, or even likely. I don't believe that there isn't a god, I just don't think that anything that has been proposed so far goes any where near supporting such a claim.

Scientific method is NOT a religion. It is a way of testing theories that are proposed. You could take the position that no theories are ever proven, but most become accepted when pretty much all evidence supports it after prolonged study.

The "Theory" of Man Made global warming is almost entirely supported by all recognized scientists who work in this field. There are new details and fillips that are being found on an almost daily basis. Occasionally, those details show some discrepancy with the the theory as currently understood, but almost all of them have now been resolved in favour of supporting the theory.

That not all data has been explained in the context of the theory does not invalidate it. If more data is uncovered that starts reversing the preponderance of evidence, then it might be time to rethink said theory. As it is, almost all data we have so far uncovered is very much in line with the the theory.

If any religion, or religious personage tries to dictate anything to me, or suggests to me anything more than I should follow The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity, the conversation is going to get very pungent, very fast.

No matter what our own personal opinions are regarding the concept of "belief" or "religion", lots of folks take it very seriously indeed, and slagging off on those beliefs is not only entirely unproductive but very frequently counterproductive.

Calling atheism a religion is offensive to most atheists, and is certainly going to make this discussion unproductive.

[Darryl]

We have friends that are Christian missionaries on several island countries in the South Pacific. They live and work in their respective villages, and most of them adopt the dress, albeit more modestly, of the local population. If you know the least bit about these areas, you would know that both genders usually wear unbifurcated garments. I would scarce believe that God would look down on them because of this, but rather commend them for their faithfulness.

Nor do I believe that 'G-d would look down on them' for wearing clothing normally worn in the society in which they lived and worked - in my opinion that would be covered under:

(Information purposes only: "To the Jews I became like a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law." (1Co 9:20 NET)

[Darryl]

Potbelly MacKraken, Sinned:

I had a rather long-term friendship with a member of the LDS during my Naval career. Very early on we agreed to disagree about this, that and the other thing but enjoyed discussing differences and share points of view. Thank you for the very interesting posts.

BACKGROUND

I was raised and highly indoctrinated into the Roman Catholic faith, began studying world religions during my high school years (Buddhism and other eastern religions, Judaism and then on to mystical things). Eventually I was rather deeply involved in Wicca by the time I enlisted in the US Navy (1971). There I met a group called 'The Navigators' which is a Christian group whose stated purpose is to 'Know Christ and Make Him Known' and which taught each of us how to be a disciple (student) of Christ and 'spiritually reproduce' by raising up new disciples. At this point I found my various studies into other beliefs had equipped me to speak to people whose views were divergent from mine.

Then in the 80's I had the pleasure of being involved in a Torah study group with several rabbis and once I got over the initial shock of the method of tossing a viewpoint/interpretation out there and having others descend on it like a group of famished piranha, after which we examined what, if anything, was left and discussed that somewhat more sedately.

Currently I enjoy a moderated discussion group in which you can be called (to provide supporting evidence and quotes) for any "glittering generalizations" you might make, assertions, statements of fact and so on. You then can't post anything else until you reply to the 'call.'

AND NOW

I have about 224 pages in my 'study' with numerous references and citations, though its not properly a research paper since not everything was properly attributed in my mashing things up. OTOH, nothing has changed from my earlier posting, I just filled out more on society, gender roles and how they are imposed from infancy on, and a number of side issues not directly relevant. Once I finish proofing it I may submit a redacted version for moderator review as a reference for the group. Currently the document is titled "Can Men Wear Skirted Garments As Men? Like Women Wear Pants? Well...Why Not?"

[Big and Bashful]

In my family things have gone a different way, my sister has been steadily working her way through the Methodist "system", starting out as a lay preacher, she eventually gave up her old line of work and now has responsibility for a large number of Methodist churches in Cumbria. I on the other hand was brought up as a christian but never believed and I still don't. I suppose I am an agnostic/apathetic, i.e. I don't believe in a God, I don't believe there isn't one, I just don't think about it, one day I will find out, one way or the other. However, that doesn't mean I am a bad person and when visiting my sister we just don't discuss it. We get on fine, we talk about her work the same way we discuss my work. I have played guitar at a Christmas service for her church, that was interesting because I only knew one of the tunes, I was brought up going to the Church of Scotland, Methodist hymns etc. were all new to me.
I must admit I find some aspects of staying in a manse at Christmas a bit heavy going, wall to wall carols starts to bug me after a couple of days, however it is worth putting up with that to get back into a family atmosphere once in a while and she cooks an excellent christmas dinner!

Each to their own!

[Couya]

I suppose I would count as a "Christian man", in that throughout my formative years, no-one ever encouraged me to question the quaint ideas that were invariably presented as the truth, so I was for 20-odd years "a Christian", in that I conformed with those around me in a predominantly Christian society.
It was not until I went to live and work in a muslim country, Morocco, that I began to question things. I was interested to learn about Islam and, out of respect, refrained from any behavior that might be offensive to my neighbours. After a while, however, I got thoroughly sick of people (including educated people) giving me their "truths", repeating traditional arguments with no logical basis. No-one there ever questioned the usefulness of rituals or of fasting, for example. The segregation of the sexes, and what I regard as the terrible injustice of the traditional treatment of women, were just part of the ordained way of life, never to be changed.
How could I criticize the blind acceptance of myths and laws on the part of muslims, when people from my own culture were just as blind in their acceptance of their own myths and laws, developed in the distant past and handed down as immutable truth? Realizing that they were defending their faith/way of life in the same unquestioning manner as I might have defended "my truths" in my younger years. With this I turned away from superstitions and took up the unbifurcated life for ever more.

Martin, an unchristian MAN wearing skirts.

[dillon]

I was raised Methodist, but have now found myself unable to accept the amount of theocracy contained in what passes for Faith. Much of it, and pretty much the entire book of Revelations, is aimed at one thing only - intimidating people away from questioning the Party Line, and asking all the "why" and "what if" and "how can it be" questions. Those questions are simply brushed away, scripturally. And the answers most often given by the talking heads of electronic pulpits are simply unacceptable to me, based on the world I see around me.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that theocracy is the foremost evil in the world today. You needn't look exclusively at the Middle East to understand that, nor should anyone for even an instant ever believe that creeping evil is the province of fundamentalist Islam alone. Anyone who thinks "it can't happen here because we are Christians" is woefully ignorant of or oblivious to the history of Christianity.

But I am a believer in a supreme Deity, be it the Scriptural God or some other superior force. It simply seems to me to be too much of a long shot for things to have turned out as they have without some divine hand. But I don't see a God as some omnipotent intervener, but as a creator who devised the double helix and then unleashed it to go as it has, perhaps with a plan, or perhaps only the omniscient knowledge of how and where it would lead to the humanity we have become...and into which we are still evolving. And I do believe that man was endowed with curiosity and the ability to reason and explore for a purpose; I dispute those who say that absolute obedience is the only way to know God; I think we were granted intellect not to be sheep, but to be shepherds in stewarding creation.

So I refer to myself as a "Cosmic Deist" much in the vein of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and the other founders of this Republic, NONE OF WHOM were fundamentalist "born-again Christians" (as we understand the current holier-than-thou judgemental rigors which now serve as hoops to jump through before someone can call themselves Christian). Employment of that concept as a pulpit tool-of-trade didn't even begin until most of our founding fathers were either deceased or very old men (much to the chagrin of extreme right-wing organizations trying to claim that America is exclusively a "Christian" nation, and founded ONLY upon the values that their organizations espouse) with the spread of the Baptist culture over many of the states. So, personally, yes, I believe in "Nature's God", but I reject most theology and the totalitarian, absolutist, "inerrant" interpretation of the Scriptures.

But I digress. Even this site has its Commandments, and one is to avoid debating religion.

[happykilt]

Looks like my English is worse than I have though... I do not find any mentioning of fashion, kilts, skirts or wearing of them in last three posts. Only religion (without any context to skirts) and I have believed it is not to be a subject here so I must be blind or illiterate.

[skirtyscot]

Well we are in "Off Topic"!

[Big and Bashful]

Looks like my English is worse than I have though... I do not find any mentioning of fashion, kilts, skirts or wearing of them in last three posts. Only religion (without any context to skirts) and I have believed it is not to be a subject here so I must be blind or illiterate.

As mentioned, this is the "Off topic" area, also, even though currently discussing the taboo subject of religion, so far the debate seems perfectly civil, no "flame war" or abusive or hostile posts, I hope the moderators let this thread continue as long as it doesn't degenerate into abuse. Even though I am not religous, I enjoy a civil debate on the subject and am always open to the chance of learning something new.